Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SALVATION ARMY BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

SAINT DIONIS BACKCHURCH CHURCHYARD BILL [Lords]

SAINT NICHOLAS ACONS CHURCHYARD BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

Lucas Estate Bill [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Land, Shopping Areas (Price)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation to restrict the price of land in popular shopping areas.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): No, Sir.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the effect of these exorbitant prices, first on articles in shops, secondly in prohibiting small shopkeepers from obtaining sites, and thirdly on the rents for the flats which will be built

above the shops? Is he aware that recently in Slough High Street a site has been sold at £1 million an acre or £3,500 per foot of frontage? Will the right hon. Gentleman stop this robbery by private interests of values created by the community?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member represents a very prosperous area and he must expect high prices to follow high demand. As for the small shopkeepers, I recognise that to them this may be a real problem, and I shall be given advice to local authorities at length on this problem soon.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that these high prices go into the hands of private persons who have added nothing to the total wealth of the nation and that as long as the Government allow this it is complete nonsense to talk of an incomes policy?

Sir K. Joseph: The public are well served by management initiative in shops as in anything else and the enlivenment and vitality of our city centres themselves are of much benefit to the public.

Country Districts (Depopulation)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that disproportionate rate burdens in the country districts, despite limited public services, are encouraging the depopulation of the countryside; and what steps he proposes to take to counteract this tendency.

Sir K. Joseph: In 1962–63 in England and Wales the average rate payment per dwelling in rural districts was only three-quarters of the average payment in urban areas other than London—less if London is included. I cannot therefore accept my hon. Friend's premise.

Mr. Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how far behind these public services often fall and that there are still many people who wish to live in the real countryside but who are deterred from doing so by the amount they have to pay for what they can get?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not disguise that behind the averages there are areas where there is a problem here, but my hon. Friend will bear in mind that education


and health services are probably provided to the same standards in the country as elsewhere, that they are certainly more expensive, and that the lack of any services should be reflected in the rental values an which rateable values are based.

Sir J. Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend realise the other kinds of burdens which country people have to bear, such as drainage rates which can weigh inequitably on people who live in the countryside? Is he also aware that the diminution of the railway services which we are to expect will mean that other services will be even further diminished?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend must realise that I am answering strictly the Question on the Order Paper, which is about the level of rates.

Mr. C. Hughes: Is it not the case that the chief causes of depopulation are, first, lack of employment and, secondly, lack of amenity, and that the increased rate burden which is taking effect in the rural areas as a result of revaluation is adding to the number of causes of depopulation? Will this aspect be borne in mind in the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman has just instituted?

Sir K. Joseph: As far as I can see, there is a considerable movement into the country, and depopulation, where it exists, is largely the result of mechanisation and improved efficiency in agriculture.

Rate Deficiency Grant, Dorset

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs by how much the rate deficiency grant to Dorset will be reduced as a result of revaluation.

Sir K. Joseph: The preliminary estimate for 1963–64 puts the rate of grant payable to the county council at 12·807 per cent., compared with 15·374 per cent. on the revised estimate for 1962–63. On the basis of the council's estimated expenditure for 1962–63 this represents a reduction of about £110,000.

Mr. Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people in Dorset, where the householder has been most hit by revaluation, find it hard to understand why the

amount of Exchequer help should be reduced in this way?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that that experience is general throughout Dorset, but the fact is that, compared with the national average, Dorset is relatively less in need of rate deficiency grant than it was. The rate deficiency grant nationally has risen by £16 million.

Mr. MacColl: Is the Minister aware that the other local authorities which have gained by the changes in rate deficiency grant have had their expectations dashed by the Government indicating that they will alter the rules concerning the rate deficiency grant in order to take that saving from them? Are not the Government trying to have it both ways?

Sir K. Joseph: That is another question.

Mr. Barnett: Is the Minister aware that counties like Dorset suffer particularly from the cost of services which have to be provided for inflated populations during the summer months and that this question should be borne in mind in evaluating the rate deficiency grant?

Sir K. Joseph: The constitution of the formula on which grant is based is under discussion this year.

Alkali Inspectorate

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if the strength of the Alkali Inspectorate is now up to establishment; and to what extent the regional offices are fully manned.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): The district offices are adequately manned at present, but the effect of the recent Alkali Works Order is being closely watched. If and when necessary two additional inspectors will be recruited to bring the strength up to establishment.

Mr. Slater: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that constant attention ought to be given to highly industrialised areas like Tees-side, where chemicals play a great part? The question of the obnoxious smells which prevail in these areas has often been raised in the House.


Does not the hon. Gentleman think constant attention should be paid to these areas so that when difficulty arises immediate action can be taken to deal with it?

Mr. Corfield: As I told the hon. Gentleman, the matter is being very closely watched, but the Chief Alkali Inspector advises me that the Tees-side area has never been more free from complaint than it is at present, apart from the dust fall as Eston, about which no doubt the hon. Gentleman knows. The Inspectorate has continuing concern in this matter, but the solution depends to a large extent on technical progress, quite apart from the question of manpower.

Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, irrespective of what the Chief Alkali Inspector may say, protests are still coming in from the general public in the area that these obnoxious smells still prevail?

Domestic Sewage Systems (Grants)

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will allow domestic sewage systems to rank for grant where these systems will have to be installed as a result of action by river boards arising from the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1961.

Mr. Corfield: There is no provision for Exchequer grant towards the cost of action to reduce river pollution in compliance with the 1961 Act, and my right hon. Friend does not think that grant for this purpose would be justified.

Mr. Wells: Is not my hon. Friend aware of the grave hardship which this very undesirable piece of Private Member's legislation is causing to the entire farming community who live anywhere near a river and a great many private people who live in what might loosely be called new suburban areas not yet served by urban sewerage? This is a grave problem, and will my hon. Friend look at it again in a far more sympathetic light?

Mr. Corfield: If my hon. Friend will send me any evidence of grave hardship, I will look at it, as I always do in matters of this sort, but I have no evidence of it myself.

Mr. Wells: I have already sent my hon. Friend one or two letters and I would refrain from inundating him with frivolous complaints, but hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of this.

Gypsies, Essex

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress has been made in the past two months in persuading the Essex County Council to make proper provision for winter camping sites for the gypsies who normally gain their summer livelihood within that county.

Mr. Corfield: I understand that the Essex County Council is looking for suitable sites and will be holding discussions with the district councils concerned when sites have been found.

Mr. Wells: Is it not manifestly unfair that the ratepayers of Kent should be burdened by providing sites and having the disamenity of Essex gypsies unloaded on to them every winter when these people find their living in the summer in Essex? Surely the Essex County Council should at least play the same active part as the Kent County Council is playing.

Mr. Corfield: As I think my hon. Friend knows, as a result of a survey in March, 1962, the Essex County Planning Committee decided to take no action because of the small number of caravans involved. He also probably knows that, as a result of a conference which I convened and at which I took the chair, Essex County Council agreed to reconsider its attitude and is now seeking sites, as I have informed the House.

Power Station, Leicester (Grit and Dust Emissions)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make a statement on the steps which the Alkali Inspectorate have taken and propose to take to abate the nuisance caused to residents in Leicester owing to the emissions from the local power station.

Mr. Corfield: Tests show that the Inspectorate has secured a major reduction in grit and dust emissions. Trouble


has arisen from the erratic performance of the precipitators. Further improvements to these are being made this summer and additional precipitators should be in operation in 1964.

Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister aware that this has been going on for 10 or 12 years, that bags of soot and of grit are being sent to me and that the whole aspect of the clean air idea is being thoroughly misunderstood by the people in the district, because they cannot for the life of them understand why they should have to keep their fires clear of the kind of coal which emits dirt, whereas these centres are literally spoiling part of their lives that should be enjoyed in cleanliness? Will the Minister please do something to clear up this matter as quickly as possible?

Mr. Corfield: Since the works came under the jurisdiction of the Inspectorate in 1958, grit and dust emissions have, I am informed, been reduced to one-third of the original amount. That is a substantial achievement. As to the future, I have told the hon. Member before that improvements to be carried out this summer will cost in the neighbourhood of £90,000 and that the long-term improvements which will be ready during 1964, to which I have also referred, will cost a further £190,000. The last time that the hon. Member asked a Question, on 2nd April, he said that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment. I hope that he will do so, because I should be delighted to elaborate on the strenuous efforts that are being made.

Sir B. Janner: On a point of order. I am greatly obliged to the Minister for inviting me to raise this matter on the Adjournment. I shall certainly try to do so at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member be good enough to indicate what point of order he was raising?

Sir B. Janner: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that I propose to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: I note what the hon. Member says.

Rates, Denton

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Minister for Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1)

why the redistribution of rates has been applied in such a way in the urban district of Denton that the share paid by industry has fallen from 15·6 per cent. of the whole to 15 per cent., whereas the national average for industry has risen from 11·2 per cent. to 16·32 per cent., thus placing a greater share of the rate-burden on domestic ratepayers; and what steps he proposes to take to raise the share of rates paid by industry there at least to the national average, with a corresponding decrease in the domestic rate burden;
(2) what reply he has made to the resolution recently sent to him by the Urban District Council of Denton, Lanes., protesting against the disparity between the redistributed rates in Denton and those applying in the country as a whole; and what steps he proposes to take to put an end to this anomaly.

Mr. Corfield: The redistribution is a consequence of the revaluation of all properties at current rental values; values of different types of property in different areas do not all grow at the same rate. If the council thinks that particular industrial assessments in Denton are too low, it can make proposals to increase them.
The hon. Member is, however, mistaken if he thinks that raising rateable values of industrial premises in Denton would make any practical difference to the domestic ratepayer, because it would automatically result in a fall in rate deficiency grants.
The council's letter of protest has been acknowledged. It does not appear to call for an answer.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the Minister aware that Denton has been discriminated against as compared with surrounding areas, that it is a highly industrialised town and that there is no good reason why industry should pay so much less now proportionately than it did before? Will he please reconsider the matter of the valuation of industry in the area?

Mr. Corfield: As I have tried to explain to the hon. Member, any question of valuation is a matter for a proposal to the valuation officer by the local authority or others concerned. As I have also explained to the hon. Member, however, the effect of any increase in the


rateable value for the industrial here-ditaments in the area would not be sufficient to bring the district as a whole out of the rate deficiency grant bracket, and, therefore, the effect on the householders would be negligible.

Mr. Zilliacus: On a point of order. I give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Great Yarmouth

Mr. Fell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the report of the Local Government Commission, what are his proposals regarding the future administration of the County Borough of Great Yarmouth.

Sir K. Joseph: I must await the Local Government Commission's final proposals before I consider the future administration of Great Yarmouth. So far the Commission has issued draft proposals only and it will be discussing these with the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Fell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer and, of course, realising that that was the fact, may I ask him kindly to note that the ancient Borough of Great Yarmouth is really proud of the administration of the town? The people are fairly satisfied with the administration—although there is always room for improvement—and particularly the administration of education and welfare, especially for old people. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will consider these matters very carefully when, eventually, he gets the final report.

Sir K. Joseph: There will be ample opportunities for these and any other points to be made in the further stages that must ensue before final proposals, let alone any decisions on them, are ready.

Mr. Fell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in what way local citizens in Great Yarmouth were consulted by the Local Government Commission for England before it submitted its draft proposals for Lincolnshire and East Anglia.

Sir K. Joseph: I am informed by the Local Government Commission that local

citizens were at the beginning of the review given the opportunity to make representations. None were received but the Commission did, of course, discuss the future local government of the town with elected representatives.

Mr. Fell: Really, this procedure is not good enough. I think the House knows that one just cannot get away with it in this way. Does not my right hon. Friend realise that I can find no authority in the area—no county council, no county borough and no rural district council—which wants Yarmouth to lose its county borough status? Could he not possibly be guilty of a slight impropriety and tip the wink to the Commission that if in its final proposals it leaves out the proposal that Yarmouth should lose its county borough status, it would save him a lot of trouble later on?

Sir K. Joseph: No one pretends that the procedure of local government review is popular, but no one can deny that there are the most elaborate precautions to take the opinions of everyone in sight.

Local Government Commission (Lincolnshire and East Anglia)

Mr. Bullard: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the cost to the Exchequer to date of the Lincolnshire and East Anglia general review carried out by the Local Government Commission for England.

Sir K. Joseph: As the Commission is engaged on several reviews at the same time I am afraid that it is not possible to identify the cost of this review.

Mr. Bullard: Would it not be a good thing if an account were kept of the separate operations of the Boundary Commission? Even if the sum involved in these reviews is not in itself tremendous, would it not be better to spend the money on something more beneficial rather than preparing all these reports and maps, cutting snippets off one local authority area and sticking it on another, thus encouraging local authorities of all kinds in territorial ambitions against their neighbours?

Sir K. Joseph: It would be immensely more costly if we were to sit still and do nothing about bringing local government boundaries up to date.

Mr. Bullard: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consultation took place between the Local Government Commission for England and the parish councils of the parishes affected by the draft proposals with respect to the county boundary between Norfolk and the Isle of Ely.

Sir K. Joseph: I am informed by the Local Government Commission that these parish councils along with others in the review area, were given the opportunity to make representations at the opening of the review. They did not do so at that stage but they now have a further opportunity to make representations on the draft proposals. They will also be invited to take part in the statutory conference which the Commission will be holding before it prepares its final report.

Mr. Bullard: Is it not a fact that this approach was made to the parish councils a very long time ago and that the consequences of their not replying were not as apparent to them then as they now are? Is. my right hon. Friend aware that if they were allowed to make representations now, almost all of them would do so in a sense contrary to the preliminary proposals of the Commission?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not see that the Commission can be blamed for giving good notice of its inquiry. There are ample further stages in which the views of the authorities concerned can be taken.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the parishes in the Isle of Ely which join those in Norfolk just over the border were also covered by the East Midlands Review? Can he give some indication of whether he proposes to lay any Orders as a result of the East Midlands review before or not until the East Anglian Report has been considered?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend will realise that that is another question.

Rates

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects Professor Allen's Committee to report on the hardship caused to those ratepayers on whom the recent valuation

has fallen most severely; and if he will make a statement on their progress.

Sir K. Joseph: The Committee has been asked to report as early as possible; but it has only just held its first meeting and it is too soon to say when the report can be expected.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that, for many households, this remains a very urgent and pressing problem?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, indeed.

Mr. MacColl: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Allen inquiry is to be of any value, it must be thorough and carried out in a proper, scientific way? Does this not mean that, in order to relieve the pressure on the ratepayers, the Government should introduce some kind of standstill until the Committee has been able to do a proper job?

Sir K. Joseph: Certainly the Committee will want, and the Government will wish it, to do a thorough job. But if the inquiry takes too long it may be necessary to ask for an interim report.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend reply to a question I have asked before on this subject? What does he suggest for people living on small fixed incomes who have not the resources to pay 100 per cent. extra on their rates? Does he suggest that they should vacate their homes or refuse to pay rates?

Sir K. Joseph: I am suggesting neither. I am asking people to wait the necessary time so that the Government can assess what, if anything, needs to be done.

Erith Marshes (New Town)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposal to build a new town on the Erith Marshes, as mentioned in Command Paper No. 1952; and, in view of the concern this has caused to people now living in the area, if he will give an assurance that demolition will be kept to a minimum, and that those disturbed will receive suitable alternative accommodation or adequate compensation.

Sir K. Joseph: I understand that the London County Council is examining


the plan it originally published. When it has decided what it wants, an application for planning permission will be made to the Kent County Council. Should the scheme involve compulsory purchase, the necessary Order would have to be submitted to me for confirmation, and all affected owners would have the right to object.
I appreciate the anxiety felt by those whose houses look like being affected by the published scheme; and I can certainly assure the hon. Member that both the London County Council and I would want to keep any demolition to a minimum, and that in so far as demolition does take place alternative accommodation for tenants or fair compensation for owner-occupiers will be provided.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am grateful for what he has done already, although there is still a long way to go before he tackles the job adequately? Does not he, with every other authority, appreciate that over 700 homes are threatened with demolition in order to provide open spaces for the new town, and that there is a lot of distress? Will it please him to know that the representations so far have worked, up to a point, since it is expected today that an announcement will be made that over 400 previously included will be left alone? But a lot must be done to see that justice is done to all the families concerned.

Sir K. Joseph: I know that the hon. Gentleman realises that this scheme is only at the draft stage and is not by any means final yet.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the difficulties in disposing of their properties being met by people in the vicinity of the proposed new town on Erith Marshes, when they are required to move to other parts of the country in connection with their employment; and if he will expedite his decision as to the specific properties that will need to be demolished.

Sir K. Joseph: No case of difficulty has been brought to my notice. Any such case should be referred to the London County Council which, I am sure, would be ready to consider it sympa-

thetically. There are no proposals yet before me.

Town Centre Schemes

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that approvals for town centre schemes are proceeding slowly; and if he will take action to expedite them.

Mr. Corfield: These schemes often raise difficult and controversial issues affecting the life of a town. They invariably involve a public inquiry and sometimes two. But my right hon. Friend is aware of the need to expedite decisions and will do his utmost to see that things are speeded up.

Mr. Boyden: Can the hon. Gentleman give some indication of how he is to do this? Does he recollect that on 28th May he told me that only 12 approvals had been given in 12 months and that his Annual Report tells us that 178 are outstanding and not likely to be tackled within the period of about two to three years? What action is the hon. Gentleman proposing to take on this?

Mr. Corfield: A Departmental working party on the subject has recommended measures to simplify the presentation and handling of the schemes, and a circular on this is being prepared in consultation with the local authority associations. When plans for comprehensive redevelopment are being considered, the statutory authorities will be urged to concentrate on essentials. It is not so much the form of submission which causes delay but the sheer complexity of redevelopment, involving large numbers of interests which have to be given very careful consideration.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Kent County Council to expedite consideration of the town centre redevelopment scheme submitted by the Orpington Urban District Council?

Mr. Sydney Irving: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in addition to the schemes outstanding last year, it is estimated that about 230 schemes will be submitted in the next two years, and that, at the rate at which his Department is giving approval, it will take to the end of the century to deal with them all?

Mr. Corfield: It would be worse to have bad schemes approved speedily than to have good ones which take a longer time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Local Authority Houses (Rent Adjustments)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that each time local authorities increase council house rents they are required to give tenants notice that their tenancy is ended, and that this causes unnecessary anxiety; and if he will introduce legislation to make this notice no longer required.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend is advised that local authorities can avoid the need to give such a notice by introducing into their conditions of tenancy a clause permitting rent adjustments to be made.

Mr. Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that about two years ago the then Minister, now the Home Secretary, wrote to me agreeing that this remedy was desirable and indicating that the change might be included in wider housing legislation subsequently? As this change has never been made, will the hon. Gentleman now consider making it to avoid giving tenants an unnecessary and additional shock every time the councils are forced to raise their rents because of the Government's high interest charges?

Mr. Corfield: I appreciate that, in certain circumstances, anxiety can be caused by the notice to quit which is sometimes necessary, but I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of local authorities so to frame that notice as to allay the anxiety. I will certainly consider what further advice might appropriately be given to local authorities on the subject.

Land Prices

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what proportion approximately of the 30 per cent. rise in average house prices since

1959 is due to the rise in the price of land.

Sir K. Joseph: It would not be safe to base any generalisation about the relationship between housing and land prices on the figure referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that, according to the Building Societies Association, up to 40 per cent. of the price of new houses in London is due to the cost of land? As he apparently does not have the figures, may I ask whether he will set up an inquiry into this? How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to deal with this fantastic rise in the cost of land which, by common knowledge, has taken place since the Government removed all the controls on land prices in 1959?

Sir K. Joseph: The Government propose to deal with the general question of land and its price by seeing that more land comes forward to keep pace with the rising building programme.

Housing Developments, Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Loan Sanction)

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what grounds he has refused loan sanction for three large housing developments in Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and why his decision was not communicated to the local authority before being made public by the hon. Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery).

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he refused loan sanction to the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation for the building of three blocks of flats in the city.

Sir K. Joseph: I was not satisfied that the tender which the council wished to accept would give it the best value for money it was in a position to get. I wrote to my hon. Friends informing them of the decision on the evening of the day on which the decision was put into the post to Newcastle.

Mr. Short: In view of the reply, and leaving aside the question of planning


permission, which is a technical point on which the right hon. Gentleman may have a case, will he confirm that the essential difference between him and the council is one of judgment—his judgment and the judgment of his advisers against that of the council and its advisers—as to whether or not this particular scheme was the best bargain for the city?
On the second point, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it took seven months to decide this matter and that he sent a reply finally to the Corporation and his two hon. Friends on the same day, according to his letter to me, in the hiatus which occurred between the council election and the calling together of the committees when the town clerk was rightly precluded from showing the letter to any members of the Corporation who have had the legal responsibility for this matter? Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that they should have to read of this in the newspapers?
Finally, in view of the fact that the case has now been accepted, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to expedite this matter and do all he can to get it through as quickly as possible so that we get these 300 families rehoused?

Sir K. Joseph: First, I made the decision because I thought that local authorities were not getting value for money. Secondly, I make no apology for the time taken. It is a very serious matter for a Minister to use this power in this way. Thirdly, I am not accountable for what happens to letters after I have sent them. Fourthly, I will certainly undertake to expedite any decision called for from me.

Mr. Elliott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the letters which he sent to my hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) and myself were not made public until three or four days had elapsed, during which time the local council could, if it wished, have made its letter public? Would my right hon. Friend further agree that the people of Newcastle have the right to be fully and frankly informed on matters which affect them? Is he further aware that the original doubts on this scheme emanated from genuine concern about the disposition of large sums of money? Is

he aware, finally, that only a full and frank public inquiry will allay the great local doubts on this matter?

Sir K. Joseph: I doubt whether it is for me to make a decision on any of those questions at the moment.

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what date he made known his decision to refuse the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation loan sanction for its proposal for three large housing schemes.

Sir K. Joseph: My decision letter was sent to the council on 22nd May, 1963.

Mr. Montgomery: Would my right hon. Friend agree that if there are complaints that the turning down of the loan sanction has held up our housing in Newcastle, it is largely due to the fact that the city council accepted a bad bargain, and if he has no power to institute a public inquiry into the matter, could he not recommend to the city council that it should itself have an inquiry so that the air can be cleared over this subject?

Sir K. Joseph: We must alt regret any delay in the provision of housing, and I hope that any delay will be kept to the absolute minimum. I shall play my part in that.

Compulsory Purchase Order, East Ham

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reasons led him to refuse confirmation of the compulsory purchase order made by the East Ham Borough Council on No. 59 Shakespeare Crescent, E.12.

Sir K. Joseph: The council failed to persuade me that the rent asked was exorbitant.

Mr. Prentice: Is it still the Minister's policy to encourage local authorities to use compulsory purchase where people are liable to be rendered homeless because of exorbitant rents? If so, why does he not apply this principle to a case in which a man earning just over £11 a week is asked to pay £6 16s. rent for a small terraced house about 60 years old?

Sir K. Joseph: In answer to the first part of that question, I am certainly anxious that local authorities should use the procedure when homelessness is threatened as a result of exorbitant rents. The facts mentioned by the hon. Member do not exactly correspond with the facts which I have been given.

Mr. M Stewart: Can the Minister indicate what he regards as an exorbitant rent? We have had so many instances of his refusing compulsory purchase orders that it is difficult to know whether he regards any rent as exorbitant.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member is normally extremely accurate in what he says, but there have been only just about as many refusals as there have been approvals. Most of the compulsory purchase orders that have been made have been withdrawn by the local authorities on their own initiative.

Mr. Stewart: The Minister has not answered my question. Can he give some idea of what he regards as an exorbitant rent?

Sir K. Joseph: No. My predecessors and I have always judged each case on its merits.

Redundant Workers (Accommodation)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he is taking to provide accommodation for persons who will be compelled to move on obtaining work in a new district when they lose their present work owing to redundancy.

Sir K. Joseph: I look forward to a rising programme of house-building as the best way of helping mobility of labour at the same time as meeting other urgent needs.

Sir B. Janner: Will the Minister consider doing something about preserving at a reasonable figure the rentals of those houses which are vacated, in consequence of redundancy? Does he realise that as soon as a house becomes vacant, in consequence of his nefarious Act the house itelf is no longer let or is let at an exorbitant rent but in most cases is sold at a very high profit, with the result that there is a scarcity of these houses? What

will the Minister do about providing houses at a reasonable rent?

Sir K. Joseph: What we will do about providing houses at a reasonable rent has just been announced in the Government's White Paper. As to the effect of reimposing rent control, it is clear on all the evidence, and particularly from Professor Donnison's pamphlet, that rent control leads to nearly all houses which are vacated being sold, whereas if they are taken out of rent control a large part of them will be let.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the Minister realise that miners, shipbuilders, railway-men and others who become redundant have to move out of a controlled house into a decontrolled house at roughly treble their previous rent? Does he realise that the Rent Act, far from being a dead issue, will become a very live issue at the next General Election?

Sir K. Joseph: What the hon. Member will not understand is that if we were to reimpose rent control, the vacated houses to which those people now have a chance to go would not be available for letting at all, but would be sold.

Rent Act

Dr. Bray: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in view of the new statement of Her Majesty's Government's policy in Command Paper 2050, and the absence in it of any reference to the private landlord, if he will now propose the repeal of the Rent Act.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir,

Dr. Bray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has finally buried the last pretence that there is any positive aspect of the Rent Act? Does he not think that some change in legislation is needed in view of his admission of the failure of Government policy in housing?

Sir K. Joseph: But for the Rent Act the shortage of rented accommodation would be even more acute than it is. I say that in full acknowledgement of the fact that a number of houses, when they are vacated by their tenants, are sold, but far fewer than there would be if rent control were reimposed.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least repeal that Section


of the Rent Act which enables him at any time to order the decontrol of houses, including those which are now controlled, since it is clear that the private landlord will not play any serious part in providing accommodation for rent? Will he give up any idea of any further decontrol of housing?

Sir K. Joseph: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "No, Sir". As for the part played by the private landlord, it is the Opposition who, by threatening to reimpose rent control, have successfully stopped any further private building for rent.

Mr. M. Stewart: If the Opposition are being successful and the Government's policy is failing, is it not time we had a change of Government?

Sir K. Joseph: It is just because the Opposition take such a negative, retrograde, obstructive attitude that in our White Paper we propose another way of providing housing to rent.

Mr. Stewart: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I feel confident that these topics are a little wide for Question Time.

Housing Societies (Loans)

Dr. Bray: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what criteria the proposed Housing Corporation will apply in making loans to housing societies.

Sir K. Joseph: I would not like to tie the Corporation's hands by going into detail in advance of the legislation, but the main tests must be whether individual building schemes would be self-supporting and would provide adequate security for the loan.

Dr. Bray: If the Minister believes that the Housing Corporation should apply a strictly economic criterion, why cannot the building societies do this? If, on the other hand, the Housing Corporation is to take social considerations into account, why rely on the accident of the formation of housing societies? Surely if the Minister believes that there is a part for a Government Housing Corporation, it must be wholeheartedly social in its objectives, and it must surely be linked with other aspects?

Sir K. Joseph: Building societies do not build, but I hope that as a result of all this they will find it infinitely worth while to lend money for this purpose. As for social need, it is just because the Government recognise the need for housing to rent that they are going to set up the Housing Corporation if the House agrees to the legislation.

House Auctions

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation to ensure that when a house is to be auctioned a copy of a surveyor's certificate of condition is made available to prospective bidders.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any widespread need for legislation of this nature.

Mr. Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a great possibility that deception can take place at such auctions? Therefore, does he not believe that if the prospective seller supplied a certificate of good repair in respect of the condition of the house, charging a small fee to the prospective bidders, it would prevent deception taking place?

Mr. Corfield: I do not think it is quite as simple as that. I have no evidence of any real need, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to send me evidence or discuss the matter further, I will certainly look at it and discuss it with my right hon. Friends who would be responsible for any legislation along these lines.

Land

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, what action he proposes to take, in view of his plans for more house building, to ensure that building land is available at reasonable prices.

Sir K. Joseph: The White Paper on Housing outlined the measures that the Government are taking to see that more land is made available for housing—the best way to ensure that prices are reasonable.

Mr. Boardman: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that any increase in house building will inevitably increase the price of building land, and that as a consequence millions of wage earners are finding that house ownership is being put even further out of their reach? Why cannot the Government take some action to put an end to this land racket?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman's premise is not right if more land is released—which is the Government's intention.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on the progress made towards a nuclear test ban agreement.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his latest exchange of letters with Mr. Khrushchev, with a view to ending the deadlock at Geneva.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister for what purpose Lord Hailsham is proposing to pay an official visit to Moscow,

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the failure of agreement between the Powers recently in conference at Geneva and his consequent correspondence with Mr. Khrushchev, if he will now invite Mr. Khrushchev to London to discuss these outstanding problems before the Summer Recess.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As the House will be aware, the result of the recent correspondence which President Kennedy and I have had with Mr. Khrushchev has been an agreement that our special representatives will go to Moscow in mid-July to discuss further the possibility of a test ban treaty. President Kennedy and I have agreed that this is the best way to proceed. My noble Friend the Lord President will be my special representative on this occasion.

Mr. Driberg: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how much we appreciate the courtesy with which he has tried to answer so many questions on this difficult subject during his period

of office? Could he say whether it might not help to expedite agreement on a test ban if he were to adopt the suggestion in Question No. Q.15 of making a similar declaration to that made last week by President Kennedy—that we would not be the first Power to resume atmospheric tests?

The Prime Minister: I think that there is a Question on that later.

Mr. Driberg: It may not be reached.

The Prime Minister: I have to be careful, in all courtesy to the hon. Member who has put down that Question, but without prejudice to that, I can assure the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) that we are in sympathy with those ideas. Without my being too optimistic about them, I hope that these conversations mark a step forward. Mr. Khrushchev has accepted the proposal we made to him in correspondence, and I hope very much that this will help to bring the matter to a fruitful conclusion.

Mr. Henderson: With a view to furthering the projected conversations, is it intended that British and American scientists should discuss with Soviet scientists the conflict of evidence on the need for on-site inspections, having regard to the existence of what are called "black boxes" and also the minimum number of such inspections which will be required?

The Prime Minister: All that, of course, will be relevant, and the scientists' views are available. But my feeling is that this is a question of the will to reach agreement. If there is the political will on both sides, I feel certain that some solution of the so-called technical problems can be found.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we fully understand that he has set his heart on reaching an agreement on this very intricate problem, and that we hope that his noble Friend will meet with success? I say that quite sincerely. But does he expect Lord Hailsham to be any more successful in Moscow than he has been in the North-East?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether than question is meant to be helpful or not. This is probably one of


the most important problems we could try to solve. It has been a very long and difficult path. I regard acceptance by Mr. Khrushchev of the proposal President Kennedy and I made in our last communication as at least a helpful sign. I regard the date he has chosen as a good sign, too, because Mr. Khrushchev also has some problems to resolve. I think that there is a good chance. This is not intended to be one of these elaborate Geneva-type negotiations. It is intended to be really a meeting of the President's representative and my representative, to say, "Can we reach an agreement? Have we the will to reach agreement? Can we not give instructions that agreement shall be reached?" If the will is there, then we can achieve our purpose.

Mr. H. Wilson: Everyone welcomed the announcement last week and welcomed even more, as did the Soviet leaders, the very forward-looking statement of President Kennedy. Does not the Prime Minister agree that one reason for the long delay has been that we have all been working at too low a level in this matter and that it is essential to get a direct confrontation with the Soviet leaders to see exactly how their minds are working? In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what proposals he has made for a personal meeting with Mr. Khrushchev?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman and the House know that I have worked at this fairly steadily for a long time. There have been great setbacks. We had a personal meeting, which failed for another reason. We have been working towards reaching agreement and this plan of sending emissaries is to help sufficiently to clear the ground so that it might then be possible to reach an agreement on the basis of all the Heads of Government concerned being ready to agree a plan which the whole world would welcome.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the unsettled and unsatisfactory conditions of world trade, industry, commerce, employment and peace, does not the Prime Minister think that it would be advisable to invite Mr. Khrushchev to a conference as I have indicated in my Question No. Q14 before the long delay of the forth-coming Recess?

The Prime Minister: That is really rather another question. I admit the slightly wider view of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the immediate question, I think, is to see whether we can reach an agreement on one thing. If we could get that, there would be at least a foundation on which many hopeful developments could follow.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Would the Prime Minister let us have in a White Paper the recent correspondence with Mr. Khrushchev, as he did last year with the correspondence about the Committee of Eighteen, which proved to be very useful?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I should like to ask to be excused from doing that at the present time. My experience with correspondence of this kind is that when it is published it is not helpful. Why I am buoyed up with hope is that both sides have agreed that their correspondence shall be confidential.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH-EAST

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Prime Minister if he will now state, following the proposals made by the Lord President of the Council, when Her Majesty's Government's long-term plans for the North-East will be announced.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether the report from the Lord President of the Council on long-term proposals for the North-East Coast has yet been received; and what action is proposed to be taken as a result of it.

Mr. Milne: asked the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the proposals of the Lord President of the Council in regard to North-East unemployment; and to what extent the report will be published.

The Prime Minister: I am expecting my noble Friend's report very shortly. As I told the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) on 28th May, when the report has been considered, the Government will announce long-term plans for the region.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will the Prime Minister assure us that this report will not be treated as a security document? Will the right hon. Gentleman issue it


as a White Paper so that we can all know the recommendations which the noble Lord is making, and will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that so long as he retains his present office he will find the necessary money from the Treasury to implement whatever policies are suggested by his noble Friend?

The Prime Minister: The report is to the Cabinet. When the Cabinet has reached its conclusions it will announce them, and I am quite sure that when the Cabinet has reached its conclusions the House will be recommended to approve any money that is necessary to implement them.

Dame Irene Ward: The Prime Minister will be aware that his noble Friend has already outlined some major proposals contained in the report. Will my right hon. Friend accept our appreciation from the north of England at the appointment which was made, directly on his recommendation, of the noble Lord, and may I say how much we appreciate the various proposals which appear to have been indicated in the report which my right hon. Friend will quite shortly receive on behalf of his Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for that, which I think is a very fair tribute to my noble Friend. A large number of short-term proposals have already been announced, and in one form or another, partly in the Budget and partly outside, have been implemented. We are now awaiting the rather longer-term plan, and this will be announced when the Government have decided what to do.

Mr. Milne: Is the Prime Minister aware that he and his Government have hedged on this matter for long enough; that this is about the fifth or sixth promise that we have had about the proposals of the Lord President of the Council; and that as the promises have increased in number so have the unemployed in the North-East? What we want is some positive action on this matter.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman first premise is incorrect, as is his second. Unemployment has fallen recently by more than 4,000.

Mr. Blyton: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the North-East we are tired of the gimmicks of the Lord President of the Council?

Dame Irene Ward: Rubbish.

Mr. Blyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that 18 months ago the Board of Trade said that there were 30,000 jobs in the pipeline, but that none has as yet emerged?

The Prime Minister: What I. the Lord President of the Council, and all my colleagues are struggling to do is to raise the material standard of well-being of the people on the North-East Coast. Nowadays, apparently, this is regarded as a disreputable ideal, but it is one to which I still cling.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to try to arrange that his noble Friend's report is made available to hon. Members before the Summer Recess?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The recommendations of the Government will be made available.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Westminster on 22nd May to the Conservative Women's Conference, indicating the possibility of a national lottery represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend made no Statement of policy. He merely expressed interest in a suggestion for a national lottery and said he would not rule it out.

Mr. Thomas: But is the Prime Minister aware that he cannot laugh off the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that he is considering a national lottery? Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Betting and Gaming Act, with the consequent spread of betting shops, bingo halls and gambling salons all over the country, has already done enough damage? Does the right hon. Gentleman want to change our national life still more?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I should have thought that the purpose of the new arrangements about betting was entirely different, namely, to try to


bring about a state of the law which was not held in general contempt, and which was a very bad position both for the public and for the police.

Mr. Thomas: But will the Prime Minister give us a reply about whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government are now considering a national lottery, because there are many people outside this House who would view such a step as a further disastrous move by the Government?

The Prime Minister: I think that this is a very doubtful proposal. It has been considered by many Chancellors for many years and there are great objections to it on financial as well as on moral grounds. I suppose that I ought to be ashamed for having been connected with Premium Bonds. However, I think that they have been a very harmless form of investment. I do not feel on my conscience the rake's progress of many men who have gone to perdition because they have risked their interest upon a £.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT POLICY (MINISTERS' STATEMENTS)

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the growing practice of Ministers making statements of Government policy to conferences and private meetings outside the House of Commons, while Questions on these subjects are on the House of Commons Order Paper awaiting answer; and whether he will advise Ministers to make such statements to the House of Commons in preference to outside bodies.

The Prime Minister: The answer to both parts of the Question is, "No, Sir".

Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware that this is a growing practice? Just before the Whitsun Recess my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and I had a Question down about the housing policy of the Government. Before the Question was reached, statements were made, and yet on the day on which the Question was due to be answered the Government published—

Hon. Members: Speak up.

Mr. Lewis: I am not Profumo. I shall speak up. Tell Profumo to speak up. Before I was rudely interrupted, I was saying that these Questions were on the Order Paper. Two days before they were due to be answered the Minister made statements over the B.B.C. and in the Press which prevented my hon. Friend and myself from asking our Questions. Does not the Prime Minister think that this is sharp practice?

The Prime Minister: I had inquiries made, and I found that on this occasion no statement was made to any outside conference or meeting before the copies of the White Paper which the Minister published were available in the House. They were available in the Vote Office at 2.30 p.m., and it was purely fortuitous that there were Questions on this subject on that day. No slight was intended to the hon. Gentleman, and although I do not urge him to speak up, I think that this is a minor grievance on which he would be prepared to lie down.

Mr. H. Wilson: When the right hon. Gentleman says that copies were available at 2.30, I take it that he means at 2.30 p.m. on the Tuesday of the publication of the White Paper? Can he tell the House why it was that on Sunday, in the Sunday Times and in the News of the World, and on Monday in The Timesand in other papers, there was a full account of every detail that was to appear in the White Paper?

The Prime Minister: My information is that it was announced that the White Paper would be published, but I shall look to see how far anything was said about the White Paper. I have known this all my life, and I really do not think that this is a very serious breach of our ordinary practice.

Mr. Lewis: That is what I am asking. This is not the first occasion. This has been happening continually. This was given on the B.B.C. officially on the Sunday. With regard to the Prime Minister's last remark to me, I certainly will not lie down with Mr. Profumo or with Miss Keeler.

Mr. M. Stewart: Can the Prime Minister explain why it is that when Ministers decide to make statements in the House there is always, by an extraordinary coincidence, a Question from an hon.


Member opposite on that very day, whereas, if hon. Members on this side of the House put down a Question when Ministers are about to make statements, the contents of those statements are somehow leaked to the public before the Questions can be asked by hon. Members on this side? Is this a coincidence every time?

The Prime Minister: No. The hon. Member has been in the House of Commons for a long time. The practice of a Question being put down is a very usual one. If a Minister wishes to make a statement, there is no reason why there should not be a Question on the subject.

,Mr. H. Wilson: A number of us have been in the House of Commons for quite a time. Is the Prime Minister aware that this Question does not relate exclusively to a housing statement but to private meetings prior to Government announcements? Has he made inquiries into the case raised recently by a number of us where Government decisions and Government projected policy in respect of the dockyard towns were first communicated to—or tried on by the Minister concerned—a private group of Conservative back benchers representing dockyard constituencies before any statement was made in the House, and that the statement made in the House had to be dragged out of the Government by way of a question about business?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that members of the Government are not allowed to consult members of their party on matters of policy. That is trying to push the privilege of the House too far.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a genuine difficulty in this matter in respect of Ministers replying to Questions in the House of Commons? I do not want to ask the Prime Minister to make any comment on Question No. Q10 this afternoon, but is not he aware that it is the number and length of supplementary questions, the multiplicity of supplementary questions which are asked by the Opposition—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—and the contents of those supplementary questions, which are more indicative of giving information, or purporting to give information—[Hon. Members: "Speech."]—which create the difficulty—[Interrup-

tion.]—and that if the House could return—[Hon. Members: "Speak up."]—and that if the House could return to the practice—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be silence, so that I can give the hon. Member an opportunity of explaining what he has said, in order to discover whether or not it was critical of the Chair.

Mr. Williams: If I have said anything which can be considered critical of the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to withdraw it. It was not so intended. I wished to ask the Prime Minister whether it was not possible that the House could return to the practice of asking for, rather than giving, information in supplementary questions.

The Prime Minister: These are matters for Mr. Speaker and not for me. All I can say is that I have tried to meet the convenience of the House. Some time ago I was asked whether, instead of having my Questions starting with No. 45—which occasionally reduced the time I had toanswer—I would agree to answer them at a quarter past three, which I willingly did. But I have observed that whereas, beforehand, earlier Questions were sometimes hurried on in order to reach my Questions, the result of the change has been in rather the opposite direction. All I can do is to meet what I thought was the general wish of the House.

SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN RHODESIA (CONFERENCE)

The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): The House will be aware that since my statement on 21st May discussions have taken place in London with the Southern Rhodesia Government. There has also been a further exchange of letters. The position has not yet been reached which would enable Her Majesty's Government to arrive at a decision on the question of Southern Rhodesia's independence. Contact is being maintained with the Government of Southern Rhodesia.
I am, however, glad to be able to inform the House that the Federal Government and the Governments of Southern and Northern Rhodesia have agreed to attend a conference on the orderly dissolution of


the Federation and the consequential problems involved. This will begin at Victoria Falls on 28th June, and I will be leaving for Africa early next week.
For the convenience of the House I have arranged for the recent correspondence exchanged between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Southern Rhodesia to be published as a White Paper. Copies of this are now available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Strachey: Is the First Secretary aware that hon. Members on this side of the House think that it is high time that Her Majesty's Government did arrive at a decision on the question of the independence of Southern Rhodesia, and that this decision ought to be that independence cannot be granted while the present constitution of Southern Rhodesia remains unamended? Is he further aware that these amendments should be on the lines of the phrases used in his concluding letter to Mr. Field, in which he refers to
broadening the basis of representation in the legislature"—
of Southern Rhodesia—
which…would take effect as soon as practicable,
and also to the future development of policy on non-discrimination?
Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he is making the acceptance of these propositions by the Southern Rhodesian Government a condition of independence?

Mr. Butler: That is precisely why it is included in the last letter in this published series. Those are the subjects that we have been discussing with the Southern Rhodesian Government. The House will be aware that Mr. Winston Field, in a previous letter—just before that to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—said that his own Government were not able to accept this basis of discussion at the present time. Discussions will continue, but we shall continue to put these points of view.

Mr. Turton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success in the initial step of negotiations. Will he make it clear how far the future economic links of the three territories will be the subject of this first part of the conference?

Will he take the opportunity of impressing upon the delegates to the conference the inevitability of a fall in the standard of living in all three territories unless some form of economic link is devised?

Mr. Butler: The primary object of the conference is to arrange the orderly dissolution of the Federation, but all the territories are interested in future links, and I am hoping that opportunities will arise while I am at Victoria Falls for this matter to be carried a stage further, so that further constructive work can be done in order to alleviate the economic difficulties of the area.

Mr. Wade: Are we to understand that the conference at Victoria Falls will be limited to representatives of Governments only? Where great constitutional issues such as this are involved, is it not most important that as wide a body of opinion as possible should be consulted, and that we should try to avoid the errors committed at the first Victoria Falls conference? What steps will be taken to ascertain the views, for example, of the Africans in Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Butler: It is important to make it clear that the conference at Victoria Falls is a conference of Governments. Unless we stick to that we shall not make any progress. I would also say that I have given an assurance—particularly to the Southern Rhodesian Government, but also to all the Governments concerned—that this conference will not be engaged in discussing the constitutional and internal affairs of any particular territory. When that time comes, I will pay attention to what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that two days' discussion prior to the conference has the object of reaching agreement on Southern Rhodesian independence, that there is no need for a further constitutional conference on this matter, and also that it is his desire to bring Southern Rhodesia to independence as soon as the Federation is dissolved?

Mr. Butler: First, there is no proposal for an actual constitutional conference in Southern Rhodesia. There is the acceptance of the request of Mr. Field to have a further discussion, but


in that discussion I shall certainly maintain the points of view that I have put, which are mentioned in the exchange of correspondence. So, at present, I must enter any further discussions without any commitment, but with good will towards that Government. I cannot do more than that. I do not wish to be tied down any further as to the discussions that I will have.

Mr. Mason: Do I understand that Nyasaland is not being invited to the Victoria Falls conference? Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has not come to a compromise agreement with Mr. Winston Field regarding the independence of Southern Rhodesia? Thirdly, do I understand that Her Majesty's Government have not made the three territorial Governments aware of their views on the future of the Central African Federation and the continuing economic links before the conference takes place? There does not seem to be a reference in the White Paper to any agenda. Finally, may I ask what possibilities does the right hon. Gentleman think there are of broadening the franchise of Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Butler: Nyasaland has been invited and is to send an observer, for which I think we should be grateful, because Nyasaland was taking up a non-co-operative view before.
An agenda of a simple character has been agreed with the Federal Government and the other Governments concerned. It is not published in the White Paper, but if the hon. Gentleman is interested I can send him a copy.
The broadening of the franchise of Southern Rhodesia is precisely one of the matters which we have been discussing with the Southern Rhodesian Government.

Sir R. Nugent: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his skill in bringing about this conference? Is he aware that to have yielded to the pressure from Southern Rhodesia to grant independence to them as a quid pro quo for attendance at the conference would undoubtedly have destroyed the conference before it ever started and completely destroyed all prospects of future economic links? Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is

very much to be congratulated on resisting that pressure? Is he also aware that he will have the good wishes of the whole House for the success of this conference?

Mr. Butler: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I shall certainly need the good wishes of the House, as I think that the conference will not be an easy one to carry through. The dissolution of the Federation is not a thing we desire, but we think that it is now inevitable. It has to be done in an orderly way and I certainly hope that I carry the good wishes of the House with me.

Mr. Strachey: The First Secretary has said that he would maintain his position on the broadening of the franchise in Southern Rhodesia. May we be assured that he means that he makes this condition of the granting of independence, because that is the real issue before the House?

Mr. Butler: I cannot say how far we shall get in the next stage of the discussions with the Southern Rhodesian Government. But having taken up a position, the House must be aware that we wish to see a definite indication of a development in the constitutional field, including the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, before we can make satisfactory progress.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must pass on to the Ballot for Notices of Motions.

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you remember that in reply to a question which I put yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State said that this statement would be made today? May I therefore have an opportunity to put a supplementary question to him?

Mr. Speaker: I confess that that matter was not in my mind. My difficulty is that I hardly ever succeed in stopping questioning on these occasions without a protest from an hon. Member. Each time I make a final concession, alas, I set myself an embarrassment for the next time. I am sure that the hon. Member will understand.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Textile Industry

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 1st July, I shall call attention to the state of affairs in the textile industry, and move a Resolution.

Roads, West Country

Mr. Webster: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 1st July, I shall call attention to the need for more road improvements in the West Country, and move a Resolution.

Arms (Export to South Africa)

Mrs. Castle: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 1st July, I shall call attention to the export of arms to South Africa, and move a Resolution.

Orders of the Day — REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS (Re-committed) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 27th May].

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER TO MAKE ORDERS AS TO REMUNERATION.)

3.45 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end to insert:
Provided that any such order shall include the complete assimilation of teachers with less than three years' training to the higher basic scale for teachers with three years' training or the equivalent.
The point of this Amendment is to make it obligatory on the Minister, when formulating his scales of teachers' salaries under the Bill, to assimilate forthwith, instead of over a period of sixteen years, those teachers who have had only two years' training instead of the three years which has now become customary.
The Minister has already stated that this is not a matter of principle where he is concerned. He has agreed that it would be grossly unjust that teachers who had only two years' training, at a time when only two years' training was available, should be treated differently in the long run from those who now have the standard period of three years. But, unfortunately, the Minister is in favour of justice being delayed. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee feel that it would be a serious embarrassment if, for another fifteen years, these teachers felt that they had a grievance—which no doubt they would air on every possible occasion—and that it would be far better to "grasp the nettle" here and now and agree that they should be assimilated with those who, in the future, will have a longer period of training.
This, again, is a question of judgment. It is not a question of principle, and we think that so far the judgment of the Minister on this point has been mistaken. Frankly, we consider that the right hon. Gentleman is being extremely foolish


in preserving a continuing grievance for himself and his successors. It is quite true that this would cost more money. The Minister made great play with that point when dealing with the matter on an earlier occasion. I have no doubt that he or his Parliamentary Secretary will do so again this afternoon. But surely it is worth while, in the present state of feeling in the teaching profession—even though it may cost a little—to secure the maximum of good will and contentment among the members of the profession.
There are not many teachers who had only two years' training. They are experienced people who have given years of service to the schools and they have earned their increase the hard way. They have not had the benefit, which will be enjoyed from this year onwards by other teachers, of being allowed to take three years over the preparation for their professional life instead of only two years. Those of us who have discussed this matter of training with the authorities in the teacher training colleges are aware that the two-year courses were often crammed and over-full and imposed a considerable strain on both staff and students.
Those teachers who are in future to have three years' training will be able to begin their professional life in easier circumstances. They will have longer experience and be somewhat more mature when they start on their careers. Those who have had an easier time will be receiving the full benefit of the increase whereas those who have to start against some disadvantage will be without the increment. The Minister has said that they will not be denied it for all time, but fifteen years is a very long time when one is at the beginning of those years.
It seems to my hon. Friends and myself that this is something on which the balance of judgment is at fault. What is to be gained is purely in financial terms. There is no other argument that I have heard advanced against the assimilation of the two types of teacher. It is simply a matter of £. s. d.; I have heard no other arguments.
I believe that I am right in saying that the teaching profession is extremely anxious that teachers should not have this division in their ranks. They fully appreciate that it is through no sin of

omission on the part of those who had only two years' training—it was all that was available to them. They feel that it would be unjust and deleterious to good relationships within the profession if, instead of having one body of teachers, we were to have this continuing division over a very long period of those who had two years' and those with three years' training.
It is only natural that those who feel they have been badly done by should spend their time at meetings and conferences year after year, if this goes on for fifteen years, manoeuvring to try to get improvements while there might be matters of far greater educational importance which should be attracting their attention. Human nature being what it is, if they have a grievance of this kind it is only to be expected that they will occupy their time, and that of their fellow teachers, discussing the grievance in and out of season. At a time when everything should be done to encourage the profession to look upon itself as a united body, able to take a statesmanlike view of matters which are of great importance in the education of young people, we are throwing this apple of discord among them quite unnecessarily.
Although I have no doubt that it will be deployed this afternoon, I cannot believe that the financial argument should be conclusive. In Standing Committee we asked that the Minister should reconsider this matter, even to the extent of shortening the period. It is far too long. I put this to the Minister. What would he feel like if he were on the other side, connected with one of the teachers' organisations, and had this problem on his plate for all this time? I also put to him—we are not discussing it this afternoon, but no doubt it will be discussed later here and elsewhere—that we have to consider the future pattern of negotiating machinery.
It is not impossible that in the changes which may come about in that machinery the Minister will take part. Does he want this question brought up on every occasion when he feels that there are other matters far more important, and to have this bedevilling all kinds of negotiations? This is laying up trouble for himself and his successors quite unnecessarily.
At the very least we would expect, since we discussed this matter in Standing Committee, that the Minister would have reconsidered it. We asked for assimilation forthwith, which, I believe, would be by far the best and most statesmanlike thing to do, but, if the Minister feels that he cannot face the Treasury on this, the least he should do is to say that he will provide for assimilation over a period of two or three years instead of fifteen. If he were to come forward this afternoon with such a proposal, in these circum stances I think that, in consultation with my hon. Friends, we would consider withdrawing this Amendment—

Mr. Frederick Willey: No.

Mrs. White: My hon. Friend says, "No". I was trying to be conciliatory because we have other matters to consider after this one.
We think that this is a mistaken policy of the Minister which would do an injustice to a very large number of teachers—far the largest proportion of existing teachers—and that it should be rectified. I cannot believe that, on consideration, the Minister can maintain the position which he has held hitherto. I hope very much that without further ado we shall hear that he as had second thoughts.

Dr. Horace King: I wish to support the Amendment. Of all the Minister's alterations to the Burnham proposals, what he has done on assimilation is about the most niggling and least justifiable.
Let me remind the Committee of the issue which is at stake. Up to the present a teacher is trained for two years and, when he is two years' trained, he is fully qualified. He has achieved all he has to achieve. From now on teachers will have to train for three years. Unless they train for three years they will not have obtained the minimum qualifications. This is a great reform for which many of us have pressed for many years. It seems a great pity that it should be marred by this salary anomaly that the Minister proposes to insert in place of what Burnham proposed.
The Burnham Committee argued, I believe quite rightly, that as the two-year trained teacher was fully qualified in

exactly the same way as the new three-year trained teacher will be qualified, according to the law governing the training of teachers at the time they trained, they should be treated alike for salary purposes. It is this equating of the two which is called assimilation. The Minister agrees with the Burnham Committee on this. There is no need to argue the principle in Committee. The simple issue is whether we make the assimilation in one fell swoop, as the Burnham Committee proposed, or spread it over a period, as the Minister is proposing.
I do not share the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) that this anomaly will remain for fourteen or fifteen years, because I am quite certain that this Government and this Measure will be out of the way long before that time. The simple issue is that Burnham wants to put right what the Minister and Burnham both agree would be wrong if it remained. Burnham wants to do it at once and the Minister wants to do it gradually. By deferring it, the Minister can save a little money inside the global sum, and the global sum is no battle between the two sides. What he is saving on assimilation he is distributing elsewhere. He says that he wants to use it to reward age and experience, but many of the teachers concerned in this anomaly are themselves of age and experience. Quite a lot of them are obviously older than the three-year trained teachers who will come in in an anomalous advantageous position.
As I pointed out in Standing Committee, if the proposals go through in their present form there will be a shocking anomaly. The three-year trained teacher is the one who will benefit, but the Minister has arranged that those teachers who take a special two-year course can come out of it as fully qualified as the three-year trained teachers although they have done two years.
Unless this Amendment is accepted, the position will be that some of the two-year trained teachers, the youngest entrants to the profession, will have the benefit of the Minister's proposals while the rest of the two-year trained teachers, including men and women of age and experience whom, the Minister says, he wants to reward, will not get the benefit.
My hon. Friend has pointed out that the cost of the Amendment cannot be


very much. But it need not cost anything. The Minister can put right this anomaly by drawing back some of the largesse which he has distributed so haphazardly inside the rest of the scale. But whether he does it either by increasing the amount of money which he provides, leaving his own pet projects untouched, or by redistributing it inside his own proposals, I would plead with him to put this anomaly right. It will be a source of irritation among the teaching profession, and when he has conceded the principle, it seems to me foolish to leave the irritation to rankle when he could so easily put it right.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: I want to say a few words in support of the purport of the Amendment. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have taken a great deal of interest in this Bill both on Second Reading and in Committee, and as I shall do in its further stages.
It seems to me that my right hon. Friend is in great danger of continuing an anomaly which springs from what we used to call in the old days the existing dual scales. This will apply to a number of people who are already teaching, whom the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) has spoken about, who have trained for a further year and who have obtained their third year of qualification, and those who are yet to come who, under the new training, have to be trained for three years.
Therefore, those who will remain only two-year qualified teachers, whether it be for five years, three years or fifteen years will be sandwiched, as it were, between these two groups of people, and I can see nothing but dispute and difficulty, not with the individual teachers but with the N.U.T. on this point of principle. I point out to my right hon. Friend that it is quite impossible to deny that not every two-year trained teacher now teaching is able to go back and do his third year to qualify for the higher scale. Sometimes his circumstances will not allow it; sometimes his family circumstances will not allow it. Those who do go back forfeit something, because they lose the opportunity perhaps of applying for another post, and also, I understand, lose a year of increment, but they pick up later in the dual scale.
There are three aspects of this matter to which I should particularly like to invite my right hon. Friend's attention. The first is that I agree that there is nothing between the two sides of the Committee or between Burnham and my right hon. Friend as regards the acceptance of the principle. My right hon. Friend, I understand, has told the Burnham Committee that he accepts the principle, and he has gone further in saying that about 95,000 teachers out of 195,000 have assimilation of this kind. To use his words, he thought that this was a pretty good first slice of the problem. I agree. But if fortuitously or deliberately we have to put in nearly 100,000 teachers already to recognise the principle of assimilation, why not let us end this dispute here and now and include the whole lot?
I do not believe that it will make a tremendous difference in the £21 million involved, and that if the principle is accepted—and I imagine that the Treasury must have had some hand in the acceptance of the principle—we cannot find the extra money without interfering with any of the other pet projects, as the hon. Member for Itchen has called them, but which my right hon. Friend has a perfect right to put in the Bill.
Secondly, I would point out that on an earlier occasion, just after the war, when even a shorter period than two years was accepted for the training of a teacher, the principle of assimilation never became in any way a stumbling block. In other words, this principle has been accepted in the past. I admit that the difference between two and three years' qualification in times of comparative peace is a very different thing from something accepted in a time of emergency. Nevertheless, the principle has, to 100 per cent., been accepted in the past and it is difficult to understand why it cannot be accepted now.
I do not believe, like the hon. Member for Itchen, that this will necessarily last as a running sore for the next fifteen years, but I do know that there will be very stormy and heavy seas ahead between my right hon. Friend and the existing Burnham Committee in the setting up of the new constitution, which I shall be pleased to see come about as soon as possible. Therefore, as we need to


start off with a good deal of good will on both sides, this would be a chance to give to the teachers this point of satisfaction so that they will feel that when we come to the much more important negotiations, as they will be, my right hon. Friend will have at least made a gesture which is no more than a recognition of the principle which has already been accepted.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I want to ask the Minister two questions arising out of the Amendment which I fully support. First, I suggest that it is unthinkable, as the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) has just said, that this should be a running sore for the next fifteen years, particularly as the Minister has accepted the principle. I would like him, if he is not prepared to accept immediate assimilation, to give the Committee some idea of what is in his mind as to the time scale concerned.
Secondly, I should like the Minister to tell us not merely what the cost of accepting this proposal would be in the first year, because that, obviously, is the year in which the cost is greatest, but, for example, what the cost would be in five years' time if no further steps in regard to assimilation had been taken.

Mr. James Boyden: I support the Amendment. I cannot understand how, in the present situation, the Minister can resist it. He wants the most amicable relations in the teaching profession in setting up the new negotiating machinery, and, as I understand it, this is one of the things which has caused the maximum amount of bitterness in the teaching profession.
I should have thought that all of us would have done everything possible to get as united a teaching profession as possible, and that the Minister would have been particularly open to this argument at the moment. He has a whole set of precedents in relation to his own ideas. Several times I have reminded him, when he was talking about the new scales and thinking of doing something to equate the profession, that he was not doing it very scientifically.
There are many precedents in other professions when qualifications are altered for assimilating people with existing qualifications to the new quali-

fications. It applied to dentists, and to architects. As the hon. Member for Bedfordshire South (Mr. Cole) said, there was a very good precedent for this in the emergency training arrangements when the Burnham Committee recommended that assimilation should be given to those with less than two years' training.
If one compares in equity the present position of new entrants to the teaching profession, they are having a very much better deal than many of those who have borne the heat and burden of the day. The attempt to reduce the numbers in classes is having some success. The school building programme is making some advance, although not as fast as we would like. Conditions advocated on this side of the Committee have not been improving anything like fast enough, but they are improving. It is only reasonable to say that these people who have been referred to should in equity be given what the teachers' side of the Burnham Committee are asking.
Logically, if the right hon. Gentleman does not concede this point he should give existing teachers, who wish to take a third year of training, or to increase their qualifications, as good conditions as possible to do so. He would, therefore, be in the position of taking out of the teaching profession for a time thousands of teachers for whom he has not the facilities if they wish to bring themselves up to the three-year level.
I hope that it will not be long before it is regarded as axiomatic that if any teacher in any grade of school wishes to improve his qualifications in order to go to another grade of school, the State will provide the facilities, the scholarships, the money, and the time. We are a long way from this state of affairs, but the Minister's present attitude merely puts that idea still further back.
I am quite sure that this is one of the fundamental ways by which the teaching profession can more easily cope with the problems which face it, and I am astounded that the Minister is taking this retrograde step. I am surprised that he is intransigent. In an article in Education this week, under the title "A Reasonable Man", there is a sentence which reads:
One of the things which has emerged from the events of the spring is the ignorance of the Minister and his advisers on how negotiations are conducted.


The right hon. Gentleman shows an equal ignorance about the way in which to get the full co-operation of the teachers in a set of negotiations which the Minister wants to bring to a successful conclusion during the next few months.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: I should like to make two comments. Assimilation depends to a large extent on the definition of qualified teachers. This is the whole kernel of the problem. The position is anomalous, because under the old regulations a two-year trained teacher was considered by the Ministry to be fully qualified whereas under the new regulations it takes three years' training for the new entrant to be regarded as fully qualified. Everything, therefore, depends upon accident of birth and when a person was trained—not where or how he was trained. I therefore appeal to the Minister to take the question of qualified status into consideration.
Secondly, on Second Reading I told the Minister exactly what I thought about the Bill and exactly what I thought about him. I am still anxious that the excellent reputation with which he came to the Ministry should be continued and our hopes fulfilled. If he granted this concession it would go a long way to retrieving the ground which both he and the Government have lost in this matter.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I support the Amendment. I cannot understand why the Minister is unwilling to accept it. It appears that he intends almost always to ignore the wishes of the N.U.T. and the other teachers' unions and that he intends on this point to ignore the wishes of the Burnham Committee, too.
Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman agree to the immediate assimilation of two-year trained and three-year trained teachers? His failure to do so ignores the experience of a teacher gained in five, six, seven or eight years in schools. That experience must be taken into account. The teacher did not take a two-year training course because he wanted only a two-year course. At that time, two years was the period laid down

and it was regarded as sufficient by the authorities to make a person fully qualified to teach children.
There is, therefore, no justice in penalising those people who years ago entered this honourable profession. Because of an accident of birth, as the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) said, they are to be penalised in the future. It cannot be the cost of assimilation which prevents the Minister from accepting the wishes of the trade unions—or, rather, I should say, of the unions, for on the last occasion that I spoke I was pulled up by the Minister on this issue. I have no experience to enable me to make a comparison between two-year and three-year trained teachers. It is sufficient for me that those who are in the profession do not want this difference in rate of pay to be continued. It is important that the teachers should work together amicably. I know of nothing which creates more enmity and sometimes bitterness between people doing the same kind of job than for them to be given a different rate of salary.
If it is a question of cost, surely the Government can find the money. If it is not, then I cannot understand the Minister's attitude in creating a difference between teachers which will do the profession no good and which will certainly not be helpful to teachers in their duty of giving children a better education than they had in the past.
I am a member of a trade union and I represent trade unionists. I know what happened in the industry with which I was connected when the rates of pay were different. Enmity was caused between individuals. Teaching is quite different from mining, but, knowing human beings as I do, I am sure that some enmity will be caused between teachers.
The Minister should look at the problem again and should accept the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs.White) spoke of removing the difference in the next two or three years. I think that assimilation should take place now and that teachers with either two years' or three years' training should have what they wish—the same rate of pay according to their years of service.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): The matter raised by the Amendment stems from a reform which was introduced nearly three years ago, in 1960. It was a reform in which we can all take some pride. The minimum training period for teachers in England and Wales was then increased from two to three years.
This being so, both the Burnham Committee and my right hon. Friend agreed that the basic scales for the future should be the scales applicable to teachers with three years' training, but the question then arose how to treat those teachers who had trained in two years when that was the minimum required of them and who retained, of course, without any question, the status of qualified teachers.
I think that everyone would agree, as a matter of principle, that when an important change of this kind is made in the qualifications required of new entrants to a profession, with resulting improvements in the rewards that they receive and the standing that they enjoy, those members already in the profession before the change must, sooner or later, have their share of those benefits. If nothing of the kind were done—this is a point which has been made by a number of hon. Members—theprofession would include for the following forty years or so a depressed class who, however able and energetic they might be, would be unable to achieve equality with their younger colleagues. Clearly, that would not be healthy.
But there are many different ways in which these members—in this case, the existing teachers with only two years'training—might be assimilated, or brought into line for salary purposes with those entering under the new conditions. The Burnham Committee recommended that this assimilation should be carried through in one single step for all the teachers concerned—there are about 195,000 of them—from 1st April, 1963. This proposal was estimated to cost almost £6 million, and thus amounted to more than one-quarter of the entire settlement.

Mr. Lubbock: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with my point. He has quoted the figure of £6 million for the first year.

Mr. Chataway: I will come to the point made by the hon. Gentleman. He asked how much it would cost in five years' time and asked me to speculate as to which of future Burnham awards would contain further tranches of assimilation. I do not think that I can enter into that kind of speculation, because, clearly, that will be a matter for discussion and negotiation when the next salary award is made. If the hon. Gentleman wishes for his own information to have an estimate of what we now estimate it would cost in five years' time to introduce assimilation, I will get that figure for him and send it to him.

Mr. Lubbock: That was not the question I asked. My question was this. If no further measures towards assimilation are undertaken beyond what is in the Bill at present, how much would the difference in cost be between accepting the Amendment and not accepting it five years into the future? I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that no further measures for assimilation will be made during the period in which the Bill operates, which is two years. This is what he seemed to be implying in the last few words he said.

Mr. Chataway: I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman that figure. I can tell him that the cost of full assimilation over the cost of the proposals made by my right hon. Friend would be in the region of £3 million. In its anxiety to do justice to teachers in service with only two years' training, the Burnham Committee introduced a curious anomaly. I think that this is worthy of the attention of hon. Members, because a number of them have suggested that the position will be anomalous as a result of my right hon. Friend's proposals.
Under the current and preceding Burnham Reports, the teacher who had stayed for a third year of training in college would find, on entering upon teaching, that he was on the same salary point on the scale as his contemporary who had entered college alongside him but had left after two years. That is the present position. They would continue to advance up the basic scale by identical steps to the maximum; and only at that point would the teacher with the additional year of training move one increment ahead of his contemporary.
Under the Burnham Committee's proposal for assimilation, the teacher who had stayed for the third year would find that his contemporary with only two years' training was actually one increment ahead of him until they reached the maximum of the scale. Whether intended or not, this might have caused some misgivings to those with longer training.
The Burnham Committee's proposals to achieve complete assimilation immediately in one step, six months before the first of the new three-year trained teachers entered the schools and at a cost exceeding one-quarter of the whole settlement and involving the anomaly I have described, seemed to my right hon. Friend a serious misjudgment of priorities.

Dr. King: I am sure that the Minister does not want to mislead the Committee. He knows that the Burnham Committee solved the problem of the anomaly he has mentioned between the really three-year trained man of the past and the two-year man who was to become a three-year man and climb up the scale with the other man by adding £30 a year to the maximum which, in time, would have righted the anomaly about which the hon. Gentleman professes to be worried—a £30 which he is taking away.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman can argue that the proposal for protection is linked with this matter. On the next Amendment we shall discuss protection. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the two-year trained teacher who entered the profession at the beginning of this academic year could well be in an advantageous position over the three-year trained teacher who entered at the beginning of next year and the protection proposal would have had no relationship to that sort of instance.

Mr. Cole: I am thinking of the figure of £6 million which, as my hon. Friend points out, is more than one-quarter of the entire settlement. I am sure that my hon. Friend has checked his figures. Is he quite certain that the £6 million does not take into account the basic increases in scale in any case, as distinct from the suggested possibility of assimilation?

Mr. Chataway: No; this is the cost of assimilation—£6 million—which is, as

my hon. Friend recognises, over one-quarter of the total cost of the award. It was with the considerations to which I have referred in mind that my right hon. Friend decided to tell the Burnham Committee that, although he fully accepted the principle of assimilation, he did not think it right to implement it all at once as the Burnham Committee had proposed.
When the Committee had declined to make any modification in response to his letter of 20th February, he suggested that at this stage assimilation should be offered immediately to those two-year trained teachers already on their maximum and to the remainder as and when they would reach their maximum. Under this proposal, about 90,000 of the 195,000 teachers concerned—or almost half—would have the benefit at once, and at about half the cost. This is obviously a very substantial first instalment.
It will be clear to the Committee that, if my right hon. Friend were to accede to the requests which have been made this afternoon, he would be able to do a very great deal less in increasing differentials, or the total cost of this award, which is already a generous one, would be appreciably increased. As I suggested in Standing Committee and my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading it would be an unhappy precedent if it seemed to be suggested that it was for the Burnham Committee to look after the basic scale and for the Government then to look after differentials by way of addition.
Moreover, under my right hon. Friend's proposal, the anomaly to which I referred would be removed. The teacher with three years' training and his contemporary who entered college alongside him but left after two years would receive the same basic scale salary throughout their careers.
If the object of assimilation is that existing teachers with two years' training should be treated on a level with those with three years' training—that is what I understand it to be—I claim that my right hon. Friend's proposal achieves it at this time much more fairly than that of the Burnham Committee.
A further criticism was raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King). He said that, although my


right hon. Friend is not willing to give complete assimilation to all teachers who trained in two years when that was all that was required of them, he is prepared to do so for teachers who successfully complete training courses of less than three years' duration now. This point was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole).
4.30 p.m.
The point to remember here is that teachers who are trained through shortened courses of less than three years' duration since the introduction of the minimum three-year course are allowed to do so only because they have some earlier training qualifications, or perhaps, a longer experience of life which leads the training authorities to believe that they are capable of reaching the standard of the three-year trained teacher in that shorter period.
Most hon. Members welcomed the introduction of the three-year course. It was not introduced for nothing, but because it was believed that it would produce more highly trained teachers; and to suggest that there is no difference between teachers trained in three years and those trained in two is pushing the point too far.

Mr. Wainwright: The hon. Member has referred to teachers who, having taken two-year courses, have qualified in a similar way to those who have taken three-year courses because of what he described as their "experience of life", presumably outside the teaching profession. Is that not tantamount to saying that teachers who have gained experience inside the profession over the same period of years cannot be compared with the experience gained by persons outside the profession? If so, the Parliamentary Secretary would seem to be adducing a farcical argument.

Mr. Chataway: The answer is that my right hon. Friend has agreed to assimilation of two-year trained teachers on to the three-year scale, at the maximum; so anyone with that number of years' experience will be paid as a three-year trained teacher.

Mr. Jennings: My hon. Friend is saying that such a person will get the status of a three-year trained, qualified

teacher having done Jess than three years in a training college simply because he is a mature student. Does he not realise that a two-year trained teacher, having served less than the number of years required of him to be on his maximum is, from the point of view of maturity and experience, in a far better position than the other type of person and should, therefore, be considered in this light?

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend may argue that assimilation should be introduced after five, six or seven years—

Mr. Jennings: No.

Mr. Chataway: —but the argument he is adducing now is not one for complete assimilation of all teachers immediately but for introducing assimilation in five or seven years instead of at the top of the scale, as my right hon. Friend proposes—and this, obviously, must remain a matter of judgment and balance.
Before commenting further on the Amendment I wish to correct one impression. It is not only those who are of maturer years who may qualify for a two-year instead of a three-year course. Those who have had earlier training qualifications may also be in this position if they are also adjudged to be suitable for a three-year course. As the standard required of those people at the conclusion of their shortened course is the standard of the three-year trained teacher, it is only fair that they should be treated accordingly for salary purposes; and I suggest that there is no unfairness in this to the former two-year trained teachers who are not required to measure up to the same standard.

Dr. King: The Parliamentary Secretary is arguing that these exceptional, two-year trained teachers are to be as well qualified as those who take the full three-year course and that, because of that, they should be assimilated at once. But he does not know how many of the 100,000 teachers he is ruling out by drawing the present line for assimilation, had they been placed in the position of having to take a three-year course, would have been able to qualify for two years in the same way. All the teachers we are pleading for today did what the law asked them to do and took two-year courses. We are pointing out that they might have been able to


have met the three-year course inside two years.

Mr. Chataway: I see the point of the hon. Member's argument, but I am sure that he will not seriously suggest that it would be feasible to select, from the number of those who are at present two-year. trained teachers below the maximum, those who might come into the category he describes. It may be that there are one or two, perhaps a larger number, but we have to deal with broad categories and I am suggesting that there is no unfairness as between a person who now qualifies for a shortened course, and, therefore, for recognition as a three-year trained teacher, and the broad majority of those who previously trained as two-year trained teachers.
It will be evident from the explanation I have given that the Amendment cuts right across the policy my right hon. Friend has been pursuing in this matter and that if it were accepted it would mean that my right hon. Friend would be unable to make the increases in differentials and to implement the other proposals to which we have throughout attached considerable importance. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Harold Steward: Can my hon. Friend go a little further than that? He will recall that, while many hon. Members have supported the Bill, they have been rather unhappy on the question of assimilation. I believe it to be right that the Amendment for immediate assimilation should be rejected, but it is almost equally wrong that we should have to wait until the maximum before any full assimilation can take place.
We have been told in the past that some of the drawbacks of the working of the Burnham Committee have been that the points in the Minister's mind have not been known. It is, therefore, not completely hypothetical to invite the Minister, even at this late stage, to tell us what is in his mind about the equity of assimilation at an earlier stage than the maximum.
I am pressing the Minister to say, here and now, what he thinks about assimilation at a stage earlier than the maximum—as and when the funds are

available to do it; and I appreciate the point about the amount of money required to achieve assimilation within even five years—and to give an indication of his views so that many of us may be happier about the immediate future than we are with the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Chataway: I hope that I will be able to reassure my hon. Friend. It is not for my right hon. Friend to dictate what the next salary negotiations will produce. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) seemed to be asking my right hon. Friend to say that the next salary negotiations will produce a certain result in regard to assimilation. Clearly, my right hon. Friend cannot make any promise on that score. However, he has made it clear on a number of occasions that he is not opposed in principle to assimilation below the maximum at some later stage. I would not think it unlikely that a further tranche of assimilation will be discussed at the next salary negotiations.

Mr. Cole: I am still rather worried about the figure of £6 million. If we have accepted the point of the 90,000 out of the 190,000 teachers—and I imagine that some of the money involved has been included for award purposes—is it strictly true to say that the Amemdment would cost an additional £6 million?

Mr. Chataway: I said £3 million.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman has avoided points put to him by myself and by his hon. Friend. It is quite true that I have accused the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of being a dictator, and I am now asking the hon. Gentleman to explain how the dictatorial powers contained in the Bill will be used. In page 2 of the Bill there is the date, 31st March, 1965; at any time before that date the Minister can exercise the powers conferred on him by the Bill. All we ask him to say is whether, with those powers, he intends to implement any further measures of assimilation before 31st March, 1965.

Mr. Chataway: No. I thought it clear that there is no proposal for further assimilation within the next two-year period.

Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary has tried hard, but his effort is not


good enough. I hope that before we dispose of this Amendment we shall hear from the Minister of Education himself. We have had some attention paid to matters of minimal importance, but not sufficient attention has been given to the particular issues of the argument. The Parliamentary Secretary no doubt feels that he has been shot down by his hon. Friend, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King)—and they both speak with a feeling of opinion within the teaching profession—but one of the reasons why I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman is that he first made his news known in a letter dated 20th February.
We were all shattered and staggered yesterday to find out what the condition of the Government was just at that time. When I got advance notice—possibly the usual leak, though I do not know—of the Minister's intentions, I said that I could not believe them; that as the Burnham Committee's Report had been so widely accepted in all educational circles the Minister must be a lunatic if he proposed behaving in this way.
We got the letter, but we now know the date of the letter, and the state of the Government at that time; how they were behaving, and how responsible Ministers were acting without reference to the Prime Minister. I should like to know how much on his own initiative and responsibility the right hon. Gentleman acted, how much of the letter the Prime Minister knew about before it was sent, and whether this matter was discussed in the Cabinet. We are now entitled to know those matters, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will later intervene in our discussion. This is one of the crucial points upon which he upset the decision of the Burnham Committee, and we should like to know to what extent he accepts sole responsibility for what was done.
The main issue was very fairly and properly put by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings). With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he does not understand what the principle here is. Assimilation over a shorter or longer time is not a question of principle. By the very nature of things, this problem will be resolved in the long-term

because, eventually, all the two-year-trained people will retire. It is a question of degree. We have to face up to the principle of recognising teaching as a profession so that when a definition is made that these people are fully qualified, they are fully qualified. That is the point of principle.
I want the Minister to face this issue of assimilation, because it has faced every profession. I should regard it as the essential criterion that determines a profession. The dentists had to face this problem. When they altered the terms of entry to the profession they had complete assimilation. The architects had to deal with the same question, and they had complete assimilation. So, hitherto, have the teachers. Why have we not done it this time?
We know that in this instance the Burnham Committee acted within a figure of £21 million. I have paid my tribute, and I pay it again, to those who took part in the negotiations, because they put the professional interest as first and paramount. They paid for assimilation. They knew they had to make an award within £21 million, and they paid for assimilation, and I think that they were right so to do. Whenever I have met groups and bodies of teachers I have made the essential point that it should be cardinal and clear that teaching is a profession. That was the issue, and that was the issue that the right hon. Gentleman failed to face. That is why there has been such feeling about this. The teachers feel that, at very great sacrifice to themselves, they put their professional status first, but the Minister has upset that and denigrated their profession.
4.45 p.m.
It is no good the Parliamentary Secretary saying that we are not entitled to know the right hon. Gentleman's intentions. Of course we are entitled to know, because we know quite well that if the Burnham Committee, or any other representative body, again negotiates teachers' salaries, complete and immediate assimilation will be agreed. We know that, so we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what his intentions are. Are we to have another dispute, or does he say that this is an interim intervention and that there will be complete assimilation the next tune teachers' salaries are discussed?
We are entitled to know this, because the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely alone. I challenged the Parliamentary Secretary on this in the Standing Committee, and he gave no reply. I said that at the time of the Burnham Committee's award, everyone in every branch of the profession accepted assimilation. I called in aid a journal sympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman—The Times Educational Supplement—which said:
The new proposals were indeed foreshadowed in the last Burnham Agreement. Taken with the increase of 1962 they can be regarded as satisfactory. Though there will be many to dispute it they may even be described, in the circumstances of the times, as generous. Three features of the provisional agreement deserve special commendation. It was wise to bring the two-year trained teachers into line with their three-year colleagues by abolishing the lower scale. With the compulsory extension of training this was, of course, something that would have solved itself in the fullness of time. But the summary change should make for a quicker harmony. Since it benefits a section of the profession from which much union activity comes it will allow future salary appraisals to take place in an atmosphere free from at least one major grievance. So it is a step in the right direction.
That is what everyone felt. This was not an easy matter for the teachers' representatives to agree, but they agreed, and we should have held fast on it. The Minister is being unfair, uncharitable and ungenerous to those who took part in the negotiations.
The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that he has done two things, and render account to the House. First of all, his action is the greatest possible slap in the face for those on both sides who took part in the negotiations. At some risk of criticism from their own membership, they called for a sacrifice on the part of many teachers in order to make it quite clear that they were establishing the professional status of teachers.
Secondly, he has made it much more difficult to conduct negotiations in future, because this will be a bone of contention. It is the right hon. Gentleman himself who has made it a bone of contention, and knew quite well when he wrote that letter that he was making it a bone of contention. Views have been expressed on both sides of the Committee—I take the absolute view—but, if we cannot have everything, let us have an undertaking from the Government that there will be

assimilation when the next award is given to the teachers.
This is a matter of cardinal importance. This was a major rebuff to the teaching profession and I still hope that the right hon. Gentleman will intervene. We have had the rejection of our case about the basic scale, but on this point I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the burden is on him to accept the decision taken by the Burnham Committee.

Dr. King: I am disappointed by what the Parliamentary Secretary has done by way of reply, but I will not stand between the Minister and the Committee for more than two minutes. I could have under-stood it if the Parliamentary Secretary had said, "We accept the principle. We should have liked to go much further, but we cannot afford it. Therefore, we have done bare justice to the older members, those on the maximum. We wish we could have done it for the others, but we cannot." The hon. Gentleman has attempted to say, on the one hand, that the Government accept the principle and, on the other, has tried to make a case for not conceding it to all teachers.
Let us look at the simple facts. The Parliamentary Secretary argues that the man coming in for two years, as part of the three-year course, should be assimilated straight away because he has age and experience or has some mysterious qualities from outside. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman is saying to teachers with all kinds of ability who have taken the two-year training, which was available to them at that time, "Unless you are on your maximum salary you no longer count for salary purposes as a fully qualified teacher." Some people who have not taken the prescribed minimum course will now be assimilated, but nearly 100,000 who took the prescribed minimum course at their time will not be assimilated. This is indefensible.
The only fair way is to include all teachers who are fully qualified. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was right when he said that when any profession or any group of workmen have stepped up the minimum qualifications for entry to that profession or trade they have always safeguarded the people who had the maximum qualifications which were fit and proper for the


job after that moment. There never was an exception.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister comes before us with a wealth of Treasury knowledge and I ask him to tell the Committee how much this will cost. We are told that it will cost £3 million, but that is only in the first year. Even if the Government survive and even if they are replaced by another Tory Government and the right hon. Gentleman remains as Minister of Education, and even if there are no changes in future salary negotiations, one by one the qualified teachers whom the Minister is keeping from being assimilated will reach their maximum and will become assimilated. The cost is £3 million in the first year, but it is a declining amount year by year as other teachers whom the Minister is at present depriving of their right come into this category.
I am always worried when the Treasury argues through any Minister that it would not be right to correct a certain anomaly because there might be another. We had an example in the Parliamentary Secretary's reply when he called attention to the comparative positions of older teachers who were three-year trained when this third year was an extra year, and older teachers who had only two years' training, but who would now be "assimilated". As we propose to deal with this anomaly in the next Amendment, I will leave this problem until then.

Mr. Wainwright: There is a point which I should like the Minister to take into account. If, in the first year, 90,000 teachers will be taken out of this group, this will leave 100,000 to be gradually totally assimilated in fifteen years. This means that there will be 50,000 in seven years' time who will not have been totally assimilated. If these considered that it would be remunerative for them to go back for another one year's training to qualify for the third year, what provision have the Government made to provide places for those who apply?
Does not the Minister admit that if he will not agree to assimilation the Government are duty bound to provide places for these teachers who want to qualify by taking the further year? If this is so, has the right hon. Gentleman considered the number of teachers who will then be

withdrawn from schools and the numbers who will be required to take their place?

Mr. Jennings: I should like to explain my personal position. On Second Reading, I said what I thought about the Bill and explained that I would abstain from voting. I feel so strongly on this particular injustice that, having abstained up to now on the Bill, in view of the extremely unsatisfactory reply and explanation given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I must tell my right hon. Friend that unless I have something far better in compromise form or total acceptance of the Amendment I feel constrained to vote against the Government on this Amendment.

The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I should like to say, first of all, to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) that he has made his position perfectly clear this afternoon. I hope that, at any rate in manner, what I have to say to the Committee my hon. Friend will find acceptable, but I say straight away that I cannot advise the Committee that there is any compromise proposal here, for reasons which I shall put as clearly as I can.
In answer to the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), I ask the Committee not to draw me further about that matter this afternoon; but in-service training for teachers is a subject which I have very much under consideration at present. I am not in a position to make a statement about it today.

Mr. Wainwright: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will give a guarantee to those teachers who want to apply for a further place that those places will be provided?

Sir E. Boyle: I am sorry, but I do not want the hon. Member to draw any sweeping deductions from what I have said. I meant that his intervention raised the important question of in-service training. It is not a subject that we have debated often, and it is not strictly in order on this Amendment, but I want the hon. Member to know that it is one which is under consideration at present.

Mr. Boyden: Surely the right hon. Gentleman's Department has already


reduced the number of supplementary courses, available to two-year trained teachers?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not believe the hon. Member is correct about that.
I should like to take up the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who asked about the circumstances of my original letter and my statement in the House of Commons in February. I assure him that I made that statement and wrote that letter with the full support of my colleagues in the Government.
There was one aspect of the hon. Member's speech with which I agree. He made it perfectly plain that the Amendment is strictly in line not merely with what I said on Second Reading but with the principles as I set them out in my original letter. I remind the Committee of what I said. There has been no change of front or any attempt to mislead on this matter. I believe that from the beginning, whatever the difference of view and whatever the sharpness of controversy, we have all at least known what we have been discussing.
I said:
I welcome in principle the proposal to put these teachers on a level with teachers with three years' training, now that three years is the minimum training for future entrants to the profession. But I do not think it right to offer this assimilation, completely and at once, to every two-year trained teacher given that some of the money so expended could be applied instead in ways that would permanently improve the scales and thus make the profession more attractive.
Lower down in my letter, I set out the principles on which I have stood throughout and said, among other things:
I would wish to see the proportionate share of the total salary bill now taken by additions for longer training, higher qualifications and posts of responsibility both in primary and in secondary schools (that is, some 15 per cent.) maintained or improved.
I think that this was implicit in my original letter. It would not have been possible to have total assimilation, and the existing sum on the basic scale maintained and carry out the proposals which I thought were right with regard to differentials. This was the main point of judgment which from the start had to be considered.
5.0 p.m.
On the basic scale, as the Committee knows, the proposals which I have outlined already involve something of an increase in the basic scale and, therefore, the point of judgment more than any other which the Committee has to consider is: does one look on maintaining the proportion of 15 per cent. for differentials or total assimilation as the more urgent consideration? In my Second Reading speech, I came, as it were, absolutely clean and explained precisely the motives in my mind. I should like the indulgence of the Committee while I quote one passage in my speech. I said:
There is one feature, common to the assimilation and protection proposals, which I wish especially to emphasise for the benefit of hon. Members. Both these proposals would benefit exclusively teachers already in service; neither could help recruitment to the profession for no new recruit could benefit from them. Yet together they accounted for over 30 per cent. of the total cost of the agreement. If I am charged today with tilting the balance a little less in favour of existing teachers than the Burnham Committee did and with correspondingly improving the prospects offered to new entrants, this is a charge I willingly accept, for it only strengthens my belief that my action has truly been in the best long-term interest of the profession.—[Official Report, 25th April, 1963; Vol. 676, c. 433–4.]
I hold to those words, and deeply though I respect the views put forward by both sides of the Committee, particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Burton and Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), none the less on the point of judgment this was the fundamental view which I took, and I still stand by it.

Mr. Jennings: While the Government, quite rightly, agreed that there should be three years' training as a minimum, they knew quite well that they would have this problem to face. My right hon. Friend has placed differentials in the forefront of his scheme. Would not he regard complete assimilation and the unified treatment of all members of the profession as a priority in differentials?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not regard total assimilation, complete and at once, as deserving a higher priority than maintaining the existing proportion devoted to differentials. That is the difference between us.

Mr. Jennings: It is a question of judgment?

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, it is entirely a question of judgment. However my hon. Friend must be fair in controversy on this matter. I certainly agree that the principle of assimilation is important. I have made it clear from the start that I regard it as absolutely right that there should be assimilation straight away at the maximum for 90,000 out of the 195,000 two-year trained teachers.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) asked a specific factual question. He said that, granted that the Amendment would save £3 million now. how much would it save in five years' time. The answer is approximately two-thirds—about £2 million. The total cost of the assimilation proposal is £6 million. When one allows for wastage, in particular—thatinelegant word we often use—the total cost would be about £4 million in five years. Therefore, in the case of the Amendment, the saving would be about £2 million in five years' time.

Mr. Cole: My right hon. Friend spoke of slightly redressing the balance between the attraction to potential new teachers and those already in the profession, who number in round terms about 250,000. Does not my right hon. Friend think that the best advertisement for any profession of this kind is the happiness and spirit of fairness which exists in the profession and that this is likely to be far more effective than any sort of attractive monetary scale?

Sir E. Boyle: I think my hon. Friend's case is decisive in saying that we want to make a major first step in the direction of assimilation. I do not regard my hon. Friend's case as decisive in saying that we should have brought about total assimilation in one "go" this time.
I should like to answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Stock-port, South(Mr. H. Steward). In view of what has been said about my connection with the pay scales which will be shortly introduced, I should, in fairness to myself, be careful about expressing too dogmatic a view on what may be the outcome of the new round of teachers' pay negotiations, whatever the machinery for it may turn out to be. I cannot believe that the Minister of

Education, whoever he is at the time and whatever his party, will not be presented with a case for bringing about complete assimilation. I accept that, and I would rather not express a view about whether it should be done in one tranche, but I certainly think that it is overwhelmingly certain that the Minister of Education, whoever he is, will expect to deal with a large tranche on next time round.

Mr. Willey: If the Minister is so certain about this, why is he not humble enough to think that he may be wrong?

Sir E. Boyle: I am prepared to recognise that what we are dealing with is a point of judgment. In view of what has been written in recent months, I should say that I have never regarded myself as the one person whose judgment is infallible. But I have certain responsibilities under Section 89 and, in exercising them, I have to act on my own judgment, fallible though it may be.
The hon. Member for Southampton. Itchen (Dr. King)—by chance he is not in his place at the moment, but he has listened to the whole debate so far—made a point about shortened courses. When my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary spoke about shortened courses of less than three years' duration, he was referring to the number of students, probably totalling not much more than 1,000. The issue of total assimilation, which I recognise is something on which the Committee feels strongly, raises very much wider issues than just the 1,000 or so three-year trained students taking shortened courses. I accept that one of the arguments for moving in the direction of complete assimilation is that it will make it easier for more students to be got through their course of training in less than three years, where this can be justified.
I have tried to explain that the point of judgment on this Amendment is the most important we have to discuss. I regard it as even more important than the one we discussed before the Whitsun Recess, I have explained why I took certain views when I sent my original letter; I have defended them in the Committee and in the House, and, in view of what I have said, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment and to approve the Government's proposals.

Mrs. White: I do not wish to detain the Committee long, because we have had a full debate in which most of the arguments have been redeployed, but, as the Minister said, this is a most important Amendment. The Minister is not entirely to be acquitted of misleading people, because many people were misled by his letter of 20th February and thought that what he wrote would be translated into very different terms from those ultimately published.
It has been clear throughout that the Minister accepts the principle of assimilation but is not going to put it into practice, except in the slowest possble way.
There it is. The Minister admits that it is a question of judgment. That is the burden of our argument. We consider that his judgment is wrong. The main point was put by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), who said that the best recruiting factor for this great profession is to have a united and contented profession. By persisting in error, as we think he is doing, the Minister is making that much more difficult.
It is not simply a question of salary, as we have said throughout. It is a question also of self-respect, of the feeling of the profession that it should be res-

pected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said, like other professions which have had to face just this sort of problem. Has anyone any doubt that if the teachers had been left to themselves they would have agreed upon assimilation, because they feel that this is something which a profession, when it reaches the point of accepting higher qualifications, takes in its stride?

The Minister has put a spanner into all this. He has had to admit that probably in the very next round of negotiations this matter will not only be brought up again—that is inevitable—but that it will be settled in the way we are asking him to settle it now. Why leave this irritant and leave a factor which will divert attention from other things which are more important?

I do not want to continue the argument. The matter is plain between us. I can only ask my hon. Friends and those hon. Members opposite who are convinced by the arguments which have been put forward to support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 243.

Division No. 135.]
AYES
[5.13 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hayman, F. H.


Ainsley, William
Deer, George
Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)


Albu, Austen
Dempsey, James
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Diamond, John
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dodds, Norman
Hilton, A. V.


Barnett, Guy
Donnelly, Desmond
Holman, Percy


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Driberg, Tom
Hooson, H. E.


Beaney, Alan
Duffy, A. E. P.
Houghton, Douglas


Bence, Cyril
Ede, Rt. Hon, C.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Blyton, William
Evans, Albert
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Boardman, H.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bottomley, Rt, Hon. A. G.
Finch, Harold
Hunter, A. E.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Fitch, Alan
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bowles, Frank
Fletcher, Eric
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Boyden, James
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Forman, J. C.
Janner, Sir Barnett


Brockway, A. Fenner
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jeger, George


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
George, Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Ginsburg, David
Jennings, J. C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Gourlay, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Grey, Charles
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Cliffe, Michael
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Collick, Percy
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Kelley, Richard


Crossman, R. H. S.
Gunter, Ray
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
King, Dr, Horace


Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Lawson, George


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hannan, William
Ledger, Ron


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Harper, Joseph
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hart. Mrs. Judith
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)




Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Parker, John
Stones, William


Lipton, Marcus
Paton, John
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Loughlin, Charles
Pavitt, Laurence
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Lubbock, Eric
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Swain, Thomas


McBride, N.
Peart, Frederick
Swingler, Stephen


MacColl, James
Pentland, Norman
Symonds, J. B.


Mclnnes, James
Prentice, R. E.
Taverne, D.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


McLeavy, Frank
Probert, Arthur
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


MacPherBon, Malcolm (Stirling)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Thornton, Ernest


Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Hudderafield, E.)
Redhead, E. C.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Manuel, Archie
Reid, William
Timmons, John


Mapp, Charles
Reynolds, G. W.
Wade, Donald


Marsh, Richard
Rhodes, H.
Wainwright, Edwin


Mason, Roy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Warbey, William


Mellish, R. J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Watkins, Tudor


Mendelson, J. J.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Weitzman, David


Millan, Bruce
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Milne, Edward
Ross, William
Whitlock, William


Mitchison, G. R.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Monslow, Walter
Short, Edward
Willey, Frederick


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Mulley, Frederick
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Neal, Harold
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Willis E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Small, William
Winterbottom, R. E.


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Woof, Robert


O'Maliey, B. K.
Sorensen, R. W,
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Oram, A. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Zilliacus, K.


Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie



Owen, Will
Steele, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Paget, R. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stonehouse, John
Dr. Broughton


NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hay, John


Aitken, Sir William
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Allason, James
Crawley, Aidan
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Critchley, Julian
Hendry, Forbes


Atkins, Humphrey
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hiley, Joseph


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Curran, Charles
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Barber, Anthony
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hocking, Philip N.


Barlow, Sir John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Holland, Philip


Barter, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hollingworth, John


Batsford, Brian
Doughty, Charles
Hopkins, Alan


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Drayson, G. B.
Hornby, R. P.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Duncan, Sir James
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Bell, Ronald
Duthie, Sir William
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Eden, Sir John
Hughes-Young, Michael


Dennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Bidgood, John C.
Elliott,R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Biffen, John
Emery, Peter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Biggs-Davison, John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
James, David


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F, J.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bishop, F. P.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Black, Sir Cyril
Farr, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Finlay, Graeme
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fisher, Nigel
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Brewis, John
Forrest, George
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Foster, John
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Brooman-White, R.
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(Stafford&amp;Stone)
Kershaw, Anthony


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kirk, Peter


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Gammans, Lady
Lagden, Godfrey


Bryan, Paul
Gardner, Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Buck, Antony
George, Sir John (Pollok)
Leavey, J. A.


Bullard, Denys
Gibson-Watt, David
Leburn, Gilmour


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Lilley, F. J. P.


Burden, F. A.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Goodhart, Philip
Loveys, Walter H.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Goodhew, Victor
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cary, Sir Robert
Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian


Channon, H. P. G.
Gresham Cooke, R.
McLaren, Martin


Chataway, Christopher
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
MacLeod, Sir J. (Ross and Cromarty)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Cleaver, Leonard
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Cooke, Robert
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maddan, Martin


Cordle, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maginnis, John E.


Corfield, F. V.
Hastings, Stephen
Maitland, Sir John







Marshall, Douglas
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Ramsden, James
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Mawby, Ray
Rees, Hugh
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maydon, Lt,-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Mills, Stratton
Ridsdale, Julian
Touche Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Miscampbell, Norman
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)
Turner, Colin


Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Roots, William
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Morrison, John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Vane, W. M. F.


Neave, Airey
Russell, Ronald
Vickers, Miss Joan


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
St. Clair, M.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennia


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walker, Peter


Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Sharples, Richard
Wall, Patrick


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Shaw, M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smith, Dudley (Dr'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Webster, David


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Speir, Rupert
Whitelaw, William


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Peel, John
Stodart, J, A.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Percival, Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wise, A. R.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Pitman, Sir James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pitt, Dams Edith
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Woollam, John


Pott, Percivall
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Worsley, Marcus


Prior, J. M. L.
Taylor Sir William (Bradford, N.)



Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Teeling, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Temple, John M.
Mr. Frank Pearson and Mr. Pym.

Mr. Edward Short: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end to insert:
Provided that any such order shall make provision on a personal basis for additional increments beyond the maximum to graduates or other teachers with three or more years' training.
The Minister said that the last Amendment was a matter of judgment. This one is very much more. It is believed almost universally in the teaching profession and in education circles that the Minister's decision not to accept this proposal of protection is not just a matter of judgment—his judgment against theirs—but a sheer breach of faith. The Amendment involves a small amount of money, and I hope that for the first time in these proceedings the right hon. Gentleman will be able to change his mind on this question and accept the principle of protection which the Burnham Committee had in its Report.
This is rather an obscure matter. The story really begins in 1944 when the Burnham Committee was negotiating the scales of salary which were to come into force on 1st April, 1945. At that time the normal training college course was two years; and that was the Committee's starting point. It then looked at the position of those teachers who had more than two years' training or study. For example, there was a very well known course in training colleges

situated near universities, a three-year course which had existed for many years, in which the student took a university degree and a teacher's certificate in three years.
There were a number of three-year trained teachers and four-year trained teachers to be considered. The first point was that they started their training at the same time as their fellows who were taking a two-year course, and because they came out of college a year later they lost one increment on the way up the incremental scale compared with their fellows who had entered college at the same time. Secondly, they lost a year's salary because they stayed a year longer in college. The third detriment that they suffered was that they drew a smaller pension and a smaller lump sum. Their pension was, and I think still is, based—or very nearly so—on the number of years served as the numerator over the denominator of 80, and the lump sum was the number of years served over 30. So the teacher who did three years' training suffered a one-eightieth reduction in pension and a one-thirtieth reduction in lump sum. Altogether such teachers suffered three detriments.
In 1944 the Burnham Committee set out to compensate those teachers and decided to do two things. First of all, it decided that an extra increment on the incremental scale should be given to


those teachers so that on the way up they would be on an equal footing with their colleagues who entered college at the same time as they did. Secondly, it was decided that when those teachers reached the maximum this increment would be continued. This was regarded as rough and ready compensation for the sacrificing of a year's salary because of the year's extra training and the loss of pension and lump sum. Similarly, for the four-year trained teacher the Committee added two increments to the maximum.
This system has obtained from 1st April, 1945, up to the present day, and teachers with more than two years' training who entered teaching in the period from 1945 to 1963 have done so in the expectation of this extra increment or two extra increments above the maximum. That was part of the conditions. It was part of the general attractiveness of the profession. Certainly it was one of the major factors, I suppose, which persuaded them to take an extra year's training above the normal, basic amount.
We now come to the recent negotiations. The normal training which faced the Burnham Committee was now not two years but three years. That is why it decided to assimilate the two-year trained teachers' salaries to the three-year trained teachers' salaries. This is the true principle of assimilation—this and nothing more. But it still left the problem of the teachers who had spent one or more years' training more than they need have done. I think that the Burnham Committee felt that if the two-year trained teachers' salaries were to be assimilated to the three-year trained teachers' salaries, the existing three-year trained teachers should in some way be assimilated to the four-year trained teachers because the existing three-year trained teachers were promised an extra increment at the maximum. As I have said, this was one of the things which made them decide to do a year or two years' extra training.
The Burnham Committee decided in its Report to add one increment—that is, £30—to the maximum for any teacher who had spent three years or more in training. That refers to existing teachers,

not future ones. Both sides of the Committee agreed to this, and they felt—they have gone on record as saying this since then—that they could not do otherwise, and that if they had done otherwise it would have been a breach of faith.
But the Minister rejected this because—my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has replied to this point—he felt that on logical grounds it interfered with his pattern of assimilation. Indeed, it is perhaps truer to say that he believed it was contrary to the principle of assimilation. But the teachers concerned—the existing teachers—had expected this extra increment from the day they entered the profession. That was why they undertook the longer training. The Burnham Committee felt itself in honour bound to do this. Clearly, if the two-year trained teachers had to be brought up to the existing three-year trained teachers, the existing three-year trained teachers would get no compensation for their loss of a year's salary or the loss of pension if this protection principle were deleted from the Report. The Joint Four said:
Assurances given repeatedly since 1945 are such that failure to provide the safeguard would, in our judgment, be a breach of faith.
5.30 p.m.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. It would, cost a very small amount of money. He has not accepted any Amendment so far, but I appeal to him on behalf of the small number of teachers to keep faith with them. They expected this. It was one of the things that brought them into the profession, one of the things that impelled them to have training above the normal. If he persists in deleting this from the Burnham scale, he will continue to break faith with the teachers.

Dr. King: I wish to support the Amendment moved with his customary clarity and fairness by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short). There are some graduates who after their three years' work on the degree take a course in the education department of a university for what is called the "teacher's diploma". Incidentally, the day will come when all graduates will have to do this by law if they wish to become teachers.
It is foolish to thrust a man or woman into the teaching profession merely with


academic qualifications and without professional training qualifications. I carry the Minister with me in saying that it is the policy of the teaching profession and of himself that one day every graduate coming into the profession shall have the kind of qualifications that the teachers have whose battle we are fighting with this Amendment. Unfortunately we are receding from that position owing to teacher shortage. But it is the ambition of both sides of this Committee, certainly that of the right hon. Gentleman.
It has always been the case that a graduate who wanted to be qualified as a professionally trained teacher has lost a year's salary because he entered the profession a year late. In addition, he has found his pension position a year behind. He has stood the risk of losing, at any rate in certain conditions, part of his pension and also part of his lump sum.
Burnham has always compensated for this to some extent, and, in the proposals that the Minister has turned down it did so by an extra allowance of £30 a year carried on to the maximum so that the professionally trained graduate teacher who had done an extra year's training at a university got the benefit, after some twenty-four years of his teaching career, of a larger maximum that the graduate who had not done that extra training. It is that extra amount which the right hon. Gentleman is taking away.
It also applies to teachers entering from a two-year training course. There were colleges—my wife attended one forty years ago at Cambridge—which had provision for an extra year. Some even took a degree at college. For those teachers who embarked on a two-year training course and then for some reason or another went further and took a three-year course, the Burnham Committee proposed £30 on the maximum. Moreover, the emergency-trained teachers who became qualified teachers by only one year's training—I make no complaint of that, for it has produced a fine body of young men and women without whom we could have not got by—and then took an extra year, as some have done, were also to qualify for the extra £30 on the maximum.
These are the categories the Minister is sweeping away, and he is doing it, as the Parliamentary Secretary told us in

Committee, in the name of logic. The Minister says that three-year training is now the normal thing. He says that one cannot have it both ways. One cannot say to the two-year trained teachers that they will now be assimilated with the new three-year trained teachers and then plead a special case for the old three-year trained teachers.
Let me point out, in case he has forgotten, that the Minister has refused assimilation to start with. He stopped the assimilation of 100,000 teachers. Moreover, the teachers for whom my hon. Friend pleads in this Amendment are all men and women who have taken more than the minimum qualifications. They have taken an extra qualification. What Burnham has done up to now is to give them some reward for their extra initiative, for their extra ability, for their extra training and, above all, for the sacrifice that they made.
I once said that there is no feature of this scale which did not affect me in some way or other before I came to this House. I remember forty-five years ago, when I had taken my degree at university, what a temptation it was for a poor boy like myself, living on a very tiny scholarship at university, to rush out and take a teaching post and earn money. I remember how difficult it was to persuade oneself that it was right to go on and take a teaching diploma at the university in order to fit oneself better for the profession. By doing so, one made a financial sacrifice straight away—a sacrifice which would last throughout one's teaching career until one reached the maximum, and which only began to be compensated for once the maximum had been reached and in the years that followed. 
I think it exceedingly ungenerous of the Minister to reverse this into a disincentive to men and women in the profession who have served faithfully and well. Indeed, I felt rather ashamed of him when, in resisting the last Amendment, he pointed out that it would benefit people inside the teaching profession instead of being an attractive jam to attract people into it.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) was right when he said that the real incentive to get people into a profession is to deal fairly with those already in it. Here we


are pleading the case of men and women who gave up a year's salary to secure extra qualifications for their life's work. They forfeited a year's pension. They did all this with assurance, for they could not have expected the appearance of a dictatorial Minister tearing up the Burnham. Committee.
These young men or women secured this extra qualification in order to serve their profession better and get extra reward towards the end of their career for the sacrifice they made at the beginning. It is for that reason that the Association of Assistant Masters, to which I belonged for a quarter of a century, denounces the Minister for breach of faith.
In many ways the last Amendment was one of the most important that we have discussed. This Amendment is one of the most emotional. It raises issues of good faith, and some of us are rather looking beyond this debate to the future. We want to get back good relations between the Minister and the teaching profession. Therefore, on this issue, which is not one of judgment but really one of good faith, I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, which will cost very little, but which will put him right with the teaching profession on the issue of confidence and the provision of fair treatment for those already in the profession.

Mr. Cole: I am aware that there is an argument that if one is keen on assimilation, if one is prepared to go to the stake for it, it is a contradictory argument to add increments over and above the top of the scale for those who are in a special position, in particular those who have a three-year qualification.
To those who might adduce that point, I can only say that it is clear to the teachers themselves and to the N.U.T. Indeed, I put the question to the representative body whom I saw about it and they agreed that it was, as it were, a final reward for those who for one reason or another had taken a three-year course to qualify, without necessarily making that reward a continuing thing all through the scale. It was something at the top of the scale, and I shall say more about this later. It would be a reward at the top of the scale for the teacher with the longer period of qualification.
The two points are not dissimilar. They live together. They are co-admissible, and it is not right to say that because we are keen on assimilation we are therefore wrong to suggest that there should be these extra points at the top of the scale.
Next, the argument might be used against the Amendment that we have been unsuccessful in persuading the Minister to agree to the Burnham recommendation about complete assimilation, and therefore, since dual scales are to continue throughout the whole scale up to the maximum, why are we keen on persisting on this award for those at the top? This is also something to which I have addressed my mind, and I still feel that as assimilation has to some extent been agreed to by the Minister, and since assimilation may possibly come within a certain length of time despite the fact that we have obtained assimilation for only 90,000 of the 195,000 teachers, we should go for these extra increments.
I am deliberately doing it this way because I am trying to look into the mind of the Minister. One way of putting an argument is to put the points of one's opponent and then knock them down before he produces them. To say the least, it embarrasses him if it does not win the battle.
The next point against the Amendment is this: if so many people abominate this whole question of dual scales, why are we supporting this Amendment for extra increments at the top of the scale? The answer is that there would be in that case no duality at all in the whole course of the 15-year scale. It is only at the top. It is a final reward for those who make sacrifices. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) referred to the sacrifices made by these teachers, and my mind went with him when he talked about the temptation, after having qualified, in having to decide whether or not to stay on for another year.
5.45 p.m.
One hopes that the world, society, and the professions will always recognise such sacrifices—the financial, personal and psychological sacrifices—that are made and the frustration that arises from not getting on with the job that one wants


to do. A young man of 18 today wants to go out and earn, say, between £4 and £5 a week in a job in business. If only he waited until he was 21 and trained he would be able to earn £15 a week, but it is no good trying to explain that to him.
Sacrifices were made not only by those who stayed on at university to take a diploma, but by those who went back to the training colleges, if they could find a place, and if their schools could free them for the additional year, to get a three-year qualification at a time when it was not required by law. What did they lose? First, they lost a year's increment on the scale. They received the teacher's allowance from the Ministry while they were doing their training, and I suppose that one made up for the other, but to me as a business man it seems that they lost something which, however intangible, was valuable. They lost being in the swim of the profession for that year. They lost their chance of going for another post which might possibly have led to a higher position. They lost the general awareness of being in touch with their profession and teaching objectively for that year.
They then went back to their profession, with the possibility of greater reward at a later stage. Assimilation or no assimilation, I believe that they should get some extra reward somewhere along the line, and I think that the maximum is the right place to do it. When a man has reached an age which coincides with his being on the maximum, it is very good for the profession that he should receive another increase or two because of the year that he gave up 8 or 10 years previously. I recently talked to a young man who was doing this, and I should like to feel that in 10 or 12 years he may still have this extra increment to come because of what he did in 1963.
There is one final argument which I do not think can be controverted, and which I ask my right hon. Friend to consider. I shall not go over what was said about my right hon. Friend's acceptance of assimilation. If I have understood the matter aright—and I ought to because I have given it some thought—the 90,000 teachers to be assimilated will all be on the maximum of the scale. It therefore seems to me that it would be proper to accept the Amendment so that

the present state of assimilation which is applicable to those at the top of the scale could also, side by side with it, come into force with the extra increments for those who have done their three-year training either through a university or through going back for the extra year. Those two things live together. They are both taking place at the maximum of the scale, and if my right hon. Friend has not addressed his mind to that point, I ask him to do so now.

Mr. Ede: The case for the Amendment has been so well argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) that I do not intend to go over the quite irresistible arguments in logic that they have addressed to the right hon. Gentleman.
On the last Amendment he told the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) that he hoped the hon. Member would be pleased with the manner of his reply. I doubt very much whether the hon. Member for Burton felt very assured by his limited account of what would happen. Had I been a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman and he had made the remark to me, and then, in the course of his speech, he had not been quite clear whether I was an hon. Friend or an hon. Gentleman, I should have had grave doubts about the matter.
I have no doubt that that is why the hon. Member for Burton is not here at the moment. He is still trying to sort himself out, and to discover whether, in the esteem of the right hon. Gentleman, he is an hon. Friend or a mere hon. Member.

Dr. King: Perhaps my right hon. Friend would like to know that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) was not in any doubt about the Minister's reply. He voted with the Opposition, for the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: That is an adequate punishment for the Minister. I am glad to hear it.
What appals me about the whole Bill is the way in which the right hon. Gentleman seems to regard the present state of


the education service as something that is likely to go on for a considerable time. As one who has given the whole of his life to the education service—first as teacher, then as administrator and afterwards as Parliamentary Secretary to the Board and to the Ministry—I am appalled at the feeling that now exists in the service, and I believe that the remarks made during the course of the last Amendment should be borne in mind. We should try to reach a position where young people of ability and advanced education can feel that they are going into a service in which these miserable, petty disputes have come to an end.
I do not know how much the Amendment will cost. My hon. Friend seemed to think that in money terms it would not cost very much. But if it is not accepted, and the Minister constructs the new scales—because we have nothing to do with them; he will do the lot, and we shall be told in the end what he has decided—according to the kind of petty considerations which have been used to support his attitude up to now, we shall not see the education service get back to the position in which it was when people felt proud to belong to a profession in which there was a partnership between the Board or the Ministry, local authorities and the practitioners in the schools.
All that we do here, and all that local authorities do, must depend upon the spirit of the people in the classroom if it is to be successful. If we perpetuate the ill-feeling that now exists, owing to the fact that well-established principles in connection with the remuneration of teachers are in jeopardy, relationships in the classroom will not be improved. I deplore more than I can put into words the continuance of this belief that the civil war which now exists inside the service will continue, and that the Minister accepts that position.
I urge on the right hon. Gentleman to show by his action on Amendments such as this that he wishes to see this miserable feud brought to an end. He created it. It will peter out only if he shows himself to be large enough to be able to recognise the danger in which he has placed the education service, and takes small steps like this to

remove the sense of grievance that undoubtedly exists among recruits into the profession who, in their early years, will find themselves immediately brought into this civil war.
The unity of our education service to that extent will be damaged, and these young people will be involved in a war that ought never to have broken out, and which certainly ought not to be made to last any longer than is necessary. That necessity will end when the Minister is prepared to recognise the depth of the feelings that his actions have aroused.

Sir E. Boyle: We are discussing the rather curious proposal of the Burnham Committee that total assimilation should be followed by a measure that one can only call de-assimilation. As I made clear in my initial letter on 20th February, and again during the Second Reading debate, this was a proposal that I could not accept even in principle quite apart from the money involved. I realise that a point of principle is involved here but this, to my mind, goes beyond the issues of judgment that we were discussing on the last Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), whose speech I listened to with interest, raised a number of matters that he thought would anticipate the points that I might raise. I will attempt to deal with his arguments, but in making one or two of his points he reminded me of the Scottish teacher who looked the difficulties boldly in the face and passed on. In the latter stages of his speech he seemed to be saying that because assimilation and protection were both matters that could be attended to on the maximum of the scale they must therefore be reconcilable, one with the other. But this technical issue raises very great difficulties, even from the point of view of the Burnham Committee's own strategy.

Mr. Cole: My right hon. Friend is not giving the point quite the emphasis that I gave it. His proposals for assimilation at the moment refer only to the maximum of the scale. Therefore, this proposal, which also applies to the maximum, coincides.

Sir E. Boyle: That is exactly the point that I thought my hon. Friend had in mind—that because my proposals for


assimilation would refer to the maximum there would be no difficulty in reconciling them with the proposals for protection that we are discussing.
I noted with interest that in the Second Reading debate the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), in her admirable winding-up speech, while castigating me in respect of other points on which I disagreed with the Burnham Committee—and I apologise to her for speaking in her absence—went to the length of saying that she thought that this protective device was the most questionable of the Burnham Committee's proposals.
This is a somewhat technical matter. The purpose of the Amendment is to require the Minister to provide, in any order under the Bill, for the payment, on a personal basis, of additional increments beyond the new maximum to existing teachers with three or more years' training. The story is this: under the existing Burnham Reports, teachers—and the word is interpreted in its widest sense, to include assistant lecturers in establishments for further education—who had taken three or more years' study or training, when the minimum training period was two years, receive one training increment for each such year beyond the minimum two. These training increments enable them, when they enter the teaching profession and throughout the whole of the incremental part of the basic scale, to have the same basic scale salary as their contemporaries in training who left after only two years.
But the training increments also continue beyond the maximum, and thus give the teachers with three or more years' training a salary lead at maximum over their two-year trained contemporaries. It has always been understood that this salary lead at maximum not only rewarded the teacher with the additional training but also compensated him for his loss of salary during the one or more years of additional training, and for the loss of those years as contributory service towards his pension.
6.0 p.m.
I think it fair to say that in the past the reason for this training increment, from the pension and superannuation aspect, has been at least as important in

the minds of people as other aspects. Now that the normal minimum training period has been raised from two years to three years, the process of assimilation on the maximum—the point on which we are all agreed, that it should be at least the maximum—Will be bringing the existing two-year trained teachers up to the same salary maximum as the three-year trained teachers.
To put it in another way, the three-year trained teachers will be losing the lead at the maximum which they have hitherto enjoyed, and it was this state of affairs which led the Burnham Committee to propose this measure of de-assimilation and to recommend the restoration of that lead by giving them, on a personal basis, an additional increment to the new minimum.
I cannot agree with this principle. If we are agreed that it is right for the former two-year trained teachers now to be paid the same at the maximum as those with three years training, I cannot accept—I ask the Committee also to reject it—that simultaneously we should protect the three-year trained teacher—

Mr. Short: The formerly trained teachers.

Sir E. Boyle: —yesthe formerly trained teachers—from having the two-year trained teachers brought up level with them. After all, those former three-year trained teachers lose nothing, neither their salary nor their pension.

Dr. King: They do in relevance.

Sir E. Boyle: I agree and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, as always, has raised so clearly just the point of debate and judgment on which the Committee has to decide.
Neither their salary nor their pension will be absolutely less in any way than they had been led to expect. I cannot agree that the principle of protection is right simply because the relevant position has altered. To say otherwise is directly to say that we cannot have assimilation without immediately bringing in this measure of de-assimilation which seems to me unjustified.

Mr. Short: The Minister is basing his whole case on the relative position.

Sir E. Boyle: I have always said that I think it absolutely right that the proportionate share of the salary bill taken on the worth of longer training and higher qualifications for posts of responsibility should be maintained or improved. But it is not right to do that in this way. Cancelling the effect of assimilation is not the right way in which to do it.

Mr. Cole: I wish to put a question to the Minister to which I am sure the answer is "Yes" or "No". Can he assure the Committee that if the Bill becomes law, any of the former three-year trained teachers, from whatever source they may come, will have the same maximum as the two-year people on the maximum? Can he assure us that the former three-year trained teachers will lose nothing in pension or salary rights?

Sir E. Boyle: My hon. Friend is not asking about the relevant question but about the absolute position and my answer is that they lose nothing. Neither salary nor pension will be less in any way than they had been led to expect.

Dr. King: But the Minister will admit that they are losing when a comparison is made with the Burnham Committee proposals?

Sir E. Boyle: That is not the question which I was asked. My hon. Friend asked whether they would lose, not relatively, but in absolute terms.

Mr. Cole: Will my right hon. Friend abandon this rather equivocal phrase "than they were led to expect"? They would have exactly the same as the two-year trained teacher?

Sir E. Boyle: The answer is they lose nothing—full stop. In absolute terms. I am trying to be as accurate as I can.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) raised the point of relativity. The relativity has altered. The hon. Member for Itchen raised the question of the position vis-àvis the Burnham Committee proposals. I accept that not having protection will affect some people adversely compared with the Burnham proposals. But my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South asked the straightforward question: will they lose anything? The answer is that they lose nothing.
I wish to deal with the question of the "breach of faith". The Association of Assistant Masters produced a pamphlet which I have read. Incidentally, the Association supports the Bill in principle, and says that the sooner it becomes law the better. But the Association considers that there is a moral commitment to those existing teachers who took three or more years over training when only two years were required.
I believe that the deliberate decision to assimilate the two-year trained teachers to the three-year trained teachers' scale completely changes the situation and renders irrelevant any such commitment as previously existed with the two-year scale. There is a reference by the Association to teachers who make sacrifices in order to improve their academic and professional qualifications, and the same point was made by the hon. Member for Itchen.
I accept that this has considerable relevance in relation to a small minority of the teachers concerned who stayed on at college for three years with a student grant when they could have started earning. But many other college-trained teachers took their three years by returning to training after some years of teaching experience and on a secondment on full pay from the authorities. There is the further point that over two-thirds of all the teachers concerned in this Amendment were graduates and I think that to make too much of the point that it was a sacrifice to stay for a third year at a university when two years gained no qualifications whatever is perhaps pitching the claim too strongly.

Dr. King: It is a three-year degree course and one is comparing the question of three years and four years. If I can help the Minister, it is when students like myself were living at university on £80 a year.

Sir E. Boyle: I accept the hon. Member's point regarding the difference between the three-year and the four-year teachers. I put them in the first category I mentioned, and I think that this does not apply to all the teachers to which the circular refers.
I cannot help feeling that this proposal was wrong in principle. While I have made clear my position on the issue of differentials I think this the wrong way


to do it, for the reasons which I set out in my letter, and which I mentioned during the Second Reading and repeated again this afternoon. I do not wish to leave the Committee in any doubt about it. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment on the ground that it is wrong in principle and does not square as I believe at all satisfactorily with the argument used during the discussions on an earlier Amendment.

Mr. Willey: The Minister has referred to a curious proposal. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman something which I consider rather curious. So far today no one has said a word in his favour except his Parliamentary Secretary. It is curious that no one has supported the right hon. Gentleman in what he has said in opposing this Amendment.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) invited us to get into the mind of the Minister. I have been trying to do that and I have come to a curious conclusion. I think that the post which the right hon. Gentleman holds should be held only by a married person. I say that for the very good reason that if we are dealing with people we do not settle things purely on the grounds of logic. If we live in a family we get used to understanding why people say things and take different actions, and in that small community we try to reach reconciliations.
We have developed in this country, and we are proud of it, a voluntary system of negotiation which depends upon many illogical reconciliations. What distressed me about the right hon. Gentleman was when he said, "I cannot agree with this proposal". That is not the issue at all. He has got himself into awful trouble by taking this attitude. The issue was; in what context and what circumstances had the Burnham Committee come to an agreement? The right hon. Gentleman is an absolute dictator. He is taking the view that he can disregard the whole of the history of the Burnham negotiations and himself take a totalitarian decision. Of course, he can take a decision which is logical and divorced from reality. That is what he is doing in this case.
The right hon. Gentleman has a choice here, because he could accept this Amendment without being unable to take the other action he wants to take. He could accept the Amendment without

it costing the Treasury any significant sum. The right hon. Gentleman is saying, "I do not agree". This is the real issue in this dispute between him and Burnham. I should like him to have a word with his diligent Parliamentary Private Secretary, who is very well-versed about the shipbuilding industry. There are many difficulties there about demarcations and relativities. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman could logically sweep them all away—and the shipyards would never work again. We know the difficulties and the Parliamentary Private Secretary knows them. We know the patient way in which we have to endeavour to solve them. The same is happening here.
I ask the Minister to pay attention to what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said. By resisting this Amendment, the Minister is making certain that there will be acrimony within the teaching profession. I put to him three broad considerations. I am sure that he agrees that one of the things we have to consider about teaching as a profession is the provision of incentives within the profession for people, not only to seek additional responsibility, but additional qualification. The right hon. Gentleman is not helping us. This will not encourage the approach within the profession. It is a very difficult problem, but something which ought to have his attention, and no doubt it has. I should like him to bear it in mind while he is considering the present Amendment.
The second broad point is this. My hon. Friends have said—and we have repeatedly come back to this argument—that if we are trying to attract people to the profession we have to treat those already in the profession with justice. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying, even if he is to be logical, is the most curious of arguments. It is that there is some principle in this, but it affects only a very small minority of people in the profession. That is all the more reason for meeting it. He should know from experience, if he discussed these matters more with people who have taken part in the negotiations over the past years or in any other negotiations, that very often it is because of the limitation of the area of dispute that the dispute is so aggravated.
Finally, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that his is not an honest argument. He does not get out of it by saying, "I was not a party to the negotiations. I have no responsibilities. I can take de novo a completely fresh decision which will be logical and which will stand on its own". He is displacing, in part, the Burnham negotiations. People who sat round the table to discuss negotiations had to be honourable to undertakings which they themselves had previously given. I say with respect to the right hon. Gentleman that it is quite dishonest—I am sure that he will appreciate it if he looks at it—to say, "I am replacing this and accepting personal responsibility for a decision in this case. I disregard these obligations which the negotiators had until I intervened". He cannot disregard in such a cavalier way the obligations which have been built up previously in these negotiations.
This is very largely morally, if not legally, a breach of contract. It is a breach of contract given personally to people in the past and properly not concerned with the logic but concerned with the inherent sense of justice within the negotiations. The Burnham Committee had to agree with this.

6.15 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: Is the hon. Member saying that because some of the partners to the Burnham negotiations were, as it were, mandated by their own people to press for a certain provision and able to persuade the Burnham Committee to agree to that provision, to that extent I am acting dishonestly—call it what you like, wrongly—in using my responsibilities under Section 89 of the Act?

Mr. Willey: I shall put it again simply. I am saying that the right hon. Gentleman says, "I am replacing the Burnham Agreement. Therefore, I have to satisfy my conscience that what I am doing is fair and equitable", and disregarding the obligations which were built into the negotiations when they were conducted on the Burnham Committee. That is a dishonest thing to do. The right hon. Gentleman is amending the Burnham Committee's award. He is not establishing an entirely new structure for teachers, but

amending the Burnham award. The least he should do, particularly as the cost is so minimal and it would not prevent him doing the other things he wants to do, would be to respect the honourable obligations which governed those who sat round the table.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has done that. I hope that on this Amendment, which in no circumstances prevents him from doing the other things he wants to do, he will respect the obligations which the negotiators of the Burnham Committee had. I hope, particularly in the light of what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said, that he will accept the Amendment. This may be illogical and may not square with what he proposes to do about assimilation, but it is something which honourable men felt they were bound to do. If he wants to establish good relations in his discussions with them about negotiating machinery for teachers, the least he should do would be to show respect for the obligations they felt they had incurred in previous Burnham negotiations.

Sir James Pitman: I am very glad that the Minister has made it so absolutely clear that there is no absolute injustice in this and no absolute change in the rate of remuneration, because this has been something on which there has been very wide and general misunderstanding.
At the Easter Conference of the National Union of Teachers, at Margate, I was informed by someone who ought to have known better that there was an absolute reduction in salary. I said to him, "I think that it is quite impossible that any Government should suggest a reduction in salary for anyone." He assured me that it was so and I said that I would go back to London and find out whether it were so. He then talked to some other people and came back and told me that I reminded him of the man who saw a giraffe in the street and said, "There ain't such an animal". There is a complete misunderstanding on this question of absolute rates.
The issue is very largely a question of relative rates and the relativity before and afterwards. It seems that a great deal of it turns on the question of pension. It may be the correct way of


doing this, though it may indeed be oversimplifying the situation, to say that we should handle it at the pension level by some adjustment, making thirty-nine seventy-eighths correspond with forty eightieths on the ground that the teacher who stays in training has a shorter service and thereby has one year less relatively in service in relation to another teacher.
I urge the Minister to consider, when he gets this Bill out of the way and can consider any future legislation, the question of pensions and to put this relativity right in the place in which it is relevant to put it.

Mr. Ede: I apologise for speaking again, but I cannot accept the doctrine that if an absolute injustice is avoided we ought to be satisfied. I cannot understand that line of argument at all.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), because I regard with the utmost apprehension the effect on the recruitment of young people into the teaching profession, where they have contacts with the rising generation and who, by their own mental attitude, often determine the effect of their teaching on the young, if there exists the feeling there is at the moment between the Minister of Education and those engaged in the class-rooms in the day to day work of education.
I said in a previous debate that when I was a young man teaching in a school the local education authority reduced by £5 the maximum of the scale along which I was slowly travelling towards the magnificent maximum of £130 a year, although, of course, £130 a year, before

the First World War, was worth a great deal more than it is today.

In those days, when we were negotiating salaries with one or other of the 317 local education authorities who then controlled the local administration of education, we were armed with a small book which was issued by the National Union of Teachers. It showed the salary scale paid by each of those 317 local education authorities—the minimum salary, the increments and the maximum salary—to any teacher who drew that scale of salary for forty-four years. That was then reckoned to be the normal teaching life of the teacher, starting at the age of 21 on leaving college and going on to 65, the retiring age under the Superannuation Acts.

That document no longer exists. The creation of the Burnham Committee wiped out the necessity for it and, of course, reduced the competition between one local education authority and another, by introducing a fancy arrangement which would enable a rather better show to be made.

The right hon. Gentleman must believe that young people still look at the whole of the service, or, at least, if they do not their parents do when recommending to them whether they should accept the service. To put people into the position at the beginning of their service that they regard themselves as labouring under an injustice which has been inflicted upon them by authority is not to make for good work in the schools and particularly in the classrooms.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 178, Noes 222.

Division No. 136.]
AYES
[6.24 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, At. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Ainsley, William
Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Castle, Mrs, Barbara
Evans, Albert


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cliffe, Michael
Fernyhough, E.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Collick, Percy
Finch, Harold


Bence, Cyril
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fitch, Alan


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Fletcher, Eric


Benson, Sir George
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Blackburn, F.
Dalyell, Tam
Forman, J. C.


Boardman, H.
Davies G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics,S.W.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ginsburg, David


Bowles, Frank
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gourlay, Harry


Boyden. James
Deer, George
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Braddock, Mrs. E, M.
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Diamond, John
Gunter, Ray


Brockway, A. Fenner
Donnelly, Desmond
Hale, Lesile (Oldham, W.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Duffy, E. A. P.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hannan, William




Harper, Joseph
McInnes, James
Short, Edward


Hart, Mrs. Judith
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hayman, F. H.
McLeavy, Frank
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Healey, Denis
Mallalieu, J.P.W, (Huddersfield,E.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Manuel, Archie
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mapp, Charles
Small, William


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Marsh, Richard
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hilton, A. V.
Mellish, R. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Holman, Percy
Mendelson, J. J,
Soskice, Rt. Hon, Sir Frank


Hooson, H. E.
Millan, Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


Houghton, Douglas
Milne, Edward
Steele, Thomas


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Mitchison, G. R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Monslow, Walter
Stonehouse, John


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moody, A. S.
Stones, William


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morris, John
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, Arthur
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Hunter, A. E.
Neal, Harold
Swain, Thomas


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Symonds, J. B.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oliver, G. H.
Taverne, D.


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
O'Mailey, B. K.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jeger, George
Oswald, Thomas
Thornton, Ernest


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Will
Thorpe, Jeremy


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Padley, W. E.
Timmons John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Paget, R. T.
Wade, Donald


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parker, John
Warbey, William


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paton, John
Watkins, Tudor


Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurence
Weitzman, David


Kenyon, Clifford
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Peart, Frederick
Whitlock, William


King, Dr. Horace
Pentland, Norman
Wilkins, W. A.


Lawson, George
Prentice, R. E.
Willey, Frederick


Ledger, Ron
Probert, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Loughlin, Charles
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woof, Robert


Lubbock, Eric
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Zilliacus, K.


McBride, N.
Ross, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacCoil, James
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton


NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cordle, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Allason, James
Corfield, F. V.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Harris, Reader(Heston)


Atkins, Humphrey
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Crawley,Aidan
Hastings, Stephen


Barber, Anthony
Critchley, Julian
Hay, John


Barlow, Sir John
Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Barter, John
Cunningham, Knox
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Batsford, Brian
Curran, Charles
Hendry, Forbes


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hiley, Joseph


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Bell, Ronald
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hocking, Philip N.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Holland, Philip


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Doughty, Charles
Hollingworth, John


Bidgood, John C.
du Cann. Edward
Hopkins, Alan


Biffen, John
Duncan, Sir James
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Sir John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bingham, R. M.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hughes-Young, Michael


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Elliott,R,W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bishop, F. P.
Emery, Peter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Black, Sir Cyril
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
James, David


Bourne-Arton, A.
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Farr, John
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Finlay, Graeme
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Fisher, Nigel
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Buck, Antony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bullard, Denys
Forrest, George
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Foster, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Gammans, Lady
Kirk, Peter


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gardner, Edward
Lagden, Godfrey


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
George, Sir John (Pollok)
Lambton, Viscount


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gibson-Watt, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cary, Sir Robert
Glover, Sir Douglas
Leather, Sir Edwin


Chataway, Christopher
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Leavey, J. A.


Chichestor-Clark, R,
Godber, J. B.
Leburn, Gilmour


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Goodhart, Philip
Lilley, F. J. P.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gower, Raymond
Loveys, Walter H.


Cleaver, Leonard
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McAdden, Sir Stephen







MacArthur, Ian
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Maclay, Rt, Hon. John
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Teeling, Sir William


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Pitman, Sir James
Temple, John M.


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Pitt, Dame Edith
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


McMaster, Stanley R.
Pott, Percivall
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Prior, J. M. L.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Macpherson, Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Maddan, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, s.)


Maginnis, John E.
Pym, Francis
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Maitland, Sir John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Marshall, Douglas
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Rees, Hugh
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Turner, Colin


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ridsdale, Julian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mills, Stratton
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Vane, W. M. F.


Miscampbell, Norman
Roots, William
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vickers, Miss Joan


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Morrison, John
Russell, Ronald
Walker, Peter


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
St. Clair, M.
Wall, Patrick


Neave, Airey
Scott-Hopkins, James
Ward, Dame Irene


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sharples, Richard
Webster, David


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Shaw, M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Whitelaw, William


Orr, Capt. L P. S.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Speir, Rupert
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stodart, J. A.
Wise, A. R.


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Partridge, E.
Storey, Sir Samuel
Woollam, John


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Studholme, Sir Henry
Worsley, Marcus


Peel,John
Summers, Sir Spencer



Percival, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Mr. McLaren and Mr. Ian Fraser.

Mr. Boyden: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end to insert:
Provided that provision shall be made for the increase of the Special Schools Allowance.
This Amendment is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington).
When we were discussing this at the last meeting of the Standing Committee, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman gave us some slight encouragement, but possibly it was more to the form than to the substance. Perhaps I may refer him to page 127 of the Official Report of the Committee, where it is reported that he said:
My difficulty is that in its proposals the Burnham Committee said nothing specific about those schools. However, I do not say this morning that during the term of the operation of the Bill I shall never bring in any proposals that affect the special schools. I am at present looking at a number of matters that affect teachers in those schools—and I entirely agree with the hon. Member about the importance of such teachers."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, I6th May, 1963; c. 1267.]
I hope that, having conceded nothing so far, the Minister will take this occasion to concede the case for special allowances to teachers in special schools. Although the Burnham Committee had not agreed on any specific recommendation, the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the

National Union of Teachers was pressing very hard for special consideration to be given to teachers in special schools.
There are several ways in which this could be dealt with. One proposition is that all teachers should be given a graded post. Alternatively, the weighting for handicapped children could be increased and, as a result, there could be more posts of special responsibility. We do not say in the Amendment which special measures should be taken, but we say that it is a matter of urgency in which an important sector of the career prospects of teaching can be improved—which is very much after the Minister's heart. It can be done at relatively small cost in a very important sector of education.
The problem of finding enough qualified teachers to take the special training is very acute. The problem of children awaiting admission is very acute—and the children who await admission to special schools partly do so because there are not enough schools available but, much more important, also do so because there are not enough teachers qualified and trained to handle this category of pupils. The figures which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me in an Answer on 22nd May show that on 20th January, 1963, there were roughly 300 blind or partially sighted children awaiting admission to special schools, about


200 deaf or partially deaf, 600 physically handicapped, 900 delicate children, 900 maladjusted children and 10,000 educationally sub-normal children, in addition to a few epileptic children and children suffering from speech defects.
The total is 13,000 children awaiting places. Even if we deduct the number of children whose parents object to their going to special schools or children who are under school age, we still have the considerable figure of about 10,000.
It follows from this situation that the right hon. Gentleman ought to take any steps he can to increase the flow of trained teachers and to give them adequate reward for taking on an onerous task and a fairly onerous training. In his interest in the career structure of the profession, this is one small field involving relatively minor cost in which he could do some-think to assist immediately.
I quote, for example, from an article in The Times Educational Supplement of 17th May on "Education for the Handicapped", which said:
The work of special schools is still developing. Their possibilities have not yet been fully realised.
At a stage when this field of education is developing, it is highly important that the maximum encouragement should be given to the maximum number of teachers to come forward and to train for it.
The article continues:
From a professional point of view a teacher can hardly be given a more challenging or absorbing task than to work out what, how and, above all, why these children should be taught. He will be unhampered by a legacy of secondhand ideas because he will be breaking new ground. He will be free from the pressures of external examinations. He may even be free from predetermined timetables and schemes of work.
The point is that there is great scope for experiment and, with that, there is very great scope for proper training and the maximum amount of it. I refer now to the fear of the teachers in this field that not enough is being done and that the Minister's adoption of a new attitude on scales will have a damaging effect on recruitment to this special work. At the moment, with the new contemplated scales only two-year trained teachers will be available for

the extra course. If two-year trained teachers take the course they will be under the financial disability which we have already discussed on previous Amendments. Therefore, it is necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to address himself to this problem.
The chairman of the Guild of Teachers of Backward Children, Mr. S. Segal, made some quite strong and valuable suggestions at Leicester recently for training courses and provision for remedying the poor situation which exists with regard to the number of teachers who are qualified. The Guild proposes a
National College for Special Education which could provide a combination of correspondence and short courses in co-operation with universities, training colleges and local education authorities.
This is a thing which the Parliamentary Secretary has heard from me on more than one occasion, that we should use all the methods we can to get training in special fields. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman to say that I thought that the number of supplementary courses has been reduced. If he examines the matter, he will find that this is so. The actual amount of training being provided is doing no more than holding its own.
On the three scores—first, that the problem is acute; secondly, that there is now a disincentive for teachers to go into this field; and, thirdly, that there is great need to multiply the training, to improve it and to reward it on the lines of the suggestion in the Amendment—I urge the right hon. Gentleman to take action now. He has taken arbitrary powers unto himself. He has an opportunity to deal with this problem. I strongly urge him to do so now.

Mr. Sydney Irving: I want briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). I have a particular interest in special schools and have had the privilege for some years of serving on the Minister of Education's Advisory Committee in this connection. I want to acknowledge at once the very great progress which has been made since the war in providing special educational treatment for fairly substantial numbers of the less fortunate of our child population. I believe that some of the most


interesting and stimulating work in the whole education service is being done in these schools.
As my hon. Friend said, anyone who is knowledgeable in this work knows only too well that we need large numbers of specially trained and specially qualified people if this work is to succeed and, indeed, to expand. It is, however, accepted not only that these are necessary, but that ideally it is particularly important that teachers should not teach in certain types of special schools unless they are, first, mature individuals and, secondly, are experienced as teachers, experienced not only with backward children and with handicapped children of all sorts but with normal children. This makes the problem of recruiting suitable teachers very difficult indeed.
I happen to be the chairman of the governing bodies of a number of different types of school, ranging from a grammar school through to a special residential school for educationally subnormal children. My experience is that, although there are tremendous difficulties in recruiting teachers foe every type of school, by far the greatest problems arise in recruiting really suitable teachers for special schools. I do not believe that to accept the Amendment would at one blow sweep away all the problems which face us here, but I am convinced that it would make its contribution to getting the right type of teachers and, at the same time, it would be a recognition of the splendid work which is being done by so many teachers in these schools at the moment.
I therefore sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Chataway: I well remember the pleas which were made in Standing Committee by a number of hon. Gentlemen for those who teach in special schools. I hope that the announcement that I am able to make on behalf of my right hon. Friend will be felt by hon. Members opposite to go a long way towards meeting the Amendment.
My right hon. Friend indicated in Standing Committee that he was examining a number of matters affecting teachers in special schools and special classes. He drew attention to

the fact that there was no recommendation from the Burnham Committee in its proposals for any increases in the allowances payable to these teachers.
My right hon. Friend has taken the line that it would not be right for him to make any important structural changes in allowances on his own initiative under the powers proposed in the Bill. However, in view of the increases in the other kinds of responsibility allowances which my right hon. Friend is proposing, and in view of the representations made by hon. Members, he would for his part be prepared to increase the allowance which is payable to all teachers employed in special schools and to many of those teaching in special classes in ordinary schools.
The proposal is that that allowance, which at present stands at £70, should be increased to £80. The cost of that proposal would be in the region of £70,000 a year.
I am very glad to be able to make this announcement because I agree with a very great deal of what has been said by the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) and Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving). I had the good fortune to attend the conference of the Guild of Teachers of Backward Children at Leicester this year and to discuss a number of the ideas that the hon. Gentleman mentioned with the chairman, Mr. Segal. For my part, I believe that the special schools make some of the strongest demands in sheer professional expertise on the teachers who work there. I therefore hope that there will be general agreement in the Committee that it is right that we should make this increase.
The Amendment in the form in which it is tabled is open to objection for lack of precision, since there is no single "special schools allowance" recognised in law to be increased. I therefore hope that the hon. Members will consider withdrawing the Amendment, in the light of the announcement that I have been able to make.

Mrs. White: We are gratified that for the very first time we have had a slight concession from the Government. The concession is one of the smallest that they could possibly have made, a matter of £10. It seems to me that, in relation to the problem concerned, if the Minister was to


make this gesture for a relatively small number of teachers he might have been rather more generous. I do not like to look a gift horse in the mouth, but £10 a year—

Mr. Chataway: A total of £70,000 a year—it depends on the way you look at it

Mrs. White: I am looking at it as it appears to the individual teacher. The sum of £10 is rather derisory. Had the amount been increased from £70 to £100 I would have said, "All right, we shall accept that with grace and gratitude", but £10 is a very small sum.
Let us consider the people whom we are discussing. They are teachers who are doing a difficult job. They are teaching handicapped children, including the educationally sub-normal, children with physical handicaps and others. Anyone who has had the slightest experience of dealing with children of this kind knows that there is no more arduous work than constantly paying attention to the idiosyncrasies of such children. These teachers are dealing with children with a multiplicity of handicaps and often a child does not suffer from one handicap but is affected in other directions.
The strain of looking after children of this sort, giving them the sort of individual training they need, is perhaps the greatest of all in the sphere of education. Generally speaking, children affected in this way are taught in small groups. Even so, the strain is considerable and the number of teachers who have had adequate training for this work is very small.
I confess that I was shocked to be reminded once more of the slight progress we have made in the training of teachers for handicapped children. I read with interest the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary recently at the conference of teachers of handicapped children. I have a galley proof of his speech with me. He paid a sincere tribute to them. I also read with interest the speech delivered by Mr. Segal who, as we all know, is a devoted officer of the Guild of Teachers of Backward Children, in which he reminded us that, in the Ministry's own calculations, no fewer than one child in ten in our schools may be

regarded as in some sense sub-normal—not necessarily seriously so, but in some sense either backward or retarded.
Mr. Segal said:
Since 1950, when the one-year supplementary and advanced courses were begun in this field—a grand total of 613 teachers has been trained, an average of not more than four for each L.E.A.
He went on to point out that of that total
…304 are in special schools, an average of two for each L.E.A. in ordinary schools. 66—more than 10 per cent. an average of less than one for each L.E.A.—are already out of the service".
In other words, the size of the problem and the paucity of the supply of teachers should have encouraged the Government to have done something more generous. Mr. Segal went on to say that
…based on the recommendations of the Ministry's own Advisory Committee…10,000 such specialist teachers…
are required and that if all the children who require special education were placed in classes of 20 or fewer, it is suggested that we should need 35,000 specialist teachers.
I quote these figures because we must approach this problem in relation to the financial inducements which are given to get the teachers we urgently need. Financial inducements are not the primary or all important matter for people undertaking this work, for there must be a special interest and devotion on their part. After all, a person going into this sphere of education realises that he or she could do much less arduous work in another branch of the profession.
I have with me a copy of a letter writen by a well-known headmaster of a school for handicapped children in which he says:
New scales have recently been issued for teachers in technical colleges and schools. Teachers in approved schools"—
who also perform a difficult task—
get separate consideration, but the teachers in special schools are the Cinderellas of the profession. Taking advantage of our sense of dedication, we have been neglected in every Burnham salary award since 1948. The constitution of Burnham is so framed that our claims never get proper consideration.
The present anomalies are seriously affecting recruitment to our particular field of education as we do not accept newly trained and inexperienced teachers into our schools. We think, and rightly, you will agree, that teachers


should have had five years experience of working with normal children before tackling the mare arduous and difficult task of teaching handicapped children.
I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with those sentiments.
We have far too few specially trained teachers when the need for them is undoubted and when some compensation should be given to those who feel that they have not had fair treatment. I am willing to be fair about this, for this is not solely the responsibility of the Minister. For various reasons the teachers have felt that they have not had a fair deal from Burnham, either. The Minister has recognised the anomaly and since he is intervening, as we suggested in Standing Committee, it is a pity that he has made such a small concession to a deserving body of teachers.
It is a shame that he has intervened in such a niggardly way. To offer £10 a year—I will not use the word "insulting", which would be too harsh an expression—does not seem to be commensurate with what is needed. To add £10 to £70 and make the total £80 is an ungenerous gesture. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary must have felt that we would welcome this gesture with enthusiasm. However, I cannot find it in my heart to do so. Had he suggested the round figure of £100 I would have agreed. That, in the general scale of allowances and increments, would have bean more generous. The figure of £100 would have been warmly welcomed. However, we certainly welcome the gesture, although it is not adequate, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) will agree that it is not a sufficient tribute to those who are doing this hard and demanding work.

Dr. King: I do not wish to delay the Committee, except to point out that our present discussion is almost an interlude in the battle that we are fighting with the Government. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on pressing the Amendment in Committee and on pursuing it today and I wish to thank the Minister for going some way along the road to recognising the claims of the special schools.
If there is a fault in the Burnham Committee it is that, over the years, it has not sufficiently recognised the arduous nature of the work done by teachers in special schools. Possibly the greatest advance we have made since the war in education has been in the treatment of sub-normal children. There was a time in the early days of this century when the young teacher was put in charge of the most difficult children and when members of the profession regarded the teacher of backward children almost as a backward teacher. We have left those days far behind. We are beginning the task of securing equal opportunities for the spastic, the epileptic, the mentally backward, the physically backward, and the rest, and in this sphere some of our greatest educational discoveries have been made during these last years.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Amendment, and I thank the Minister for, at any rate, accepting its spirit, even if he has not given very much money. As my hon. Friend has said, though the concession is small in amount it means that in the years ahead the case of the special school teacher will be recognised more and more by subsequent negotiating bodies.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Wainwright: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on his Amendment, but has the Minister taken sufficient cognisance of the many circumstances surrounding these children and their teachers? A lot of patience and a wonderful temperament are needed to teach 30 or 40 normal children—I know, as the father of four children, that my own temper has been strained many times—so that, in any circumstances, teachers need a certain amount of dedication. How much more is that the case in order to teach mentally handicapped children, sub-normal children, spastic children?
I emphasise that we have accepted the responsibility to educate these children as far as is possible, which means that we must try to make certain that we attract to this special teaching sufficient people with the right kind of qualifications and the right temperament—teachers who are dedicating themselves to this form of education. If we are doing that, we are making a great contribution towards easing the most difficult lives of these


children. I am not quite certain, however, that what the Minister suggests is enough for that purpose.
Several years ago I had to deal with the case of young parents who had a child of 7 or 8. The child was normal except that it had been completely deaf from birth, and the parents had been able to teach it only one little word. It was able to utter something that sounded like "mother". The parents had tried persistently to teach the child to say a few words, but that was as far as they had got. They had tried to get the child into a special home, and I was successful in getting it a place in a special school in Doncaster.
It is some years since I heard from the parents, but they were then highly delighted. Somehow or other, the teachers responsible had been able to teach that child to speak a few sentences. How they did it, I do not know. I have promised myself to go to one of these schools on some occasion to see their methods, but I do realise the amount of patience and tolerance which is required of these people is worthy of all praise.
We should be able to convince ourselves that we are doing sufficient to attract enough teachers into the special schools, so as to ensure that these children for whom we take responsibility get some education, even though the standard may be low when compared with that achieved by normal children. I do not think that this increase from £70 to £80 will attract the specialised teachers who are necessary for this work, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider his suggestion.

Mr. Boyden: This is the first concession that we have had on the Bill. It is a very small one, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will continue to look at this problem very seriously indeed, and that, on the basis of this extra £10, he will in future discuss the matter very carefully with those concerned. I hope that in the course of the other negotiations that will take place later he will be able to bring to the House something more attractive to these teachers. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end to insert:
(4) Every order made under this section in relation to any description of teachers shall include provision for securing that the remuneration payable to any teacher of that description in respect of any person to which the order applies is not less than it would have been if any scales of remuneration submitted to the Minister by order of section 89 of the Education Act 1944 had been approved by the Minister.
I will speak briefly, for two reasons. First, it is rather more encouraging when the Parliamentary Secretary is in control, and I should like this Amendment to be discussed before the Minister of Education returns to the Chamber. Secondly, this matter has been discussed indirectly throughout our deliberations.
Hon. Members know the essential point in the argument about the right hon. Gentleman's quite unwarranted interference with the Burnham Committee, and I call in aid a letter I received some time ago from Sir Ronald Gould, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, which concludes:
I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House would prefer to see teachers and local authorities acting in harmony with the Minister of Education rather than in conflict with him. If you share our concern, I would ask you to use your good offices to see that the Remuneration of Teachers Bill is amended so as to secure the implementation of the Burnham Committee's proposals or to permit a compromise whereby the Minister might provide that limited sum of extra money that would enable his views and the proposals of the Burnham Committee to be reconciled.
That is the point we have reached.
We have tried genuinely and seriously, and as forcibly as we could, to persuade the Minister that he has been wrong to interfere with the negotiated settlement, and we have failed. We now take a step that we hope will have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, by proposing that if we cannot reach any agreement on the Minister's interference we should seek a reconciliation. The only ground of reconciliation for us will cost the Government and the Exchequer not a very appreciable sum of money, but certainly something. We say that the only fair and equitable way, and the only diplomatic way, to preserve good relations is to say that if the right hon. Gentleman insists on his views he should


add the cost of those views to the £21 million involved in the Burnham award.
I emphasise what the circumstances are. They are that the Burnham Committee obviously came to its agreement within a figure that was acceptable to the Government, the Treasury and the Ministry—£21 million. I do not want to go over this disputed territory again, but it is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman had access to the Burnham Committee.
It is quite clear that this was the position obtaining alter Lord Eccles's disagreement with the Committee and, whatever misunderstandings there may have been about this, it is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman could have conveyed forcibly, or less forcibly, his views to the Burnham Committee either directly or indirectly. In these circumstances we must recognise that the Burnham Committee, honestly and not without difficulty, came to its conclusion. Since then, the Minister has said that there are certain factors which he thinks ought to affect an award made to teachers at the moment. In short, he has said that there ought to be a steepening of differentials. As we have failed to convince the Minister that he ought to accept the Burnham award, we should tell him that he ought to accept both points of view.
We accept the view that the Burnham Committee, within limits imposed by the Government and negotiating within a global sum, honestly reached an agreement acceptable to both the local authorities and the teachers' representatives. The Minister believes that other objectives ought to be superimposed on those achieved in that negotiating machinery. If he believes it, let him pay for it. This is not a large sum of money. This is a late stage in our proceedings but if the right hon. Gentleman does this he will be taking the only possible path to secure a reconciliation in this unfortunate and unnecessary dispute between him and the teachers and the local authorities.
When we began our proceedings on the Bill I stressed to the right hon. Gentleman, and most of those who have taken part since in our discussions have re-emphasised it, the importance of recognising a partnership in education. This has not been disputed by the right hon.

Gentleman. It is only his actions which have disputed it. I believe that British education depends upon the checks and balances which lie within this partnership. The only way in which the right hon. Gentleman can avoid seriously impairing this partnership today is by saying that he recognises the strength of the opposition to his action and that, however right he feels his action has been, it is action taken in complete isolation hardly without any support from either the teachers or the local authorities. I should have thought, therefore, that it was well worth while to seek this reconciliation and to re-establish the partnership upon which British education depends. It is in that spirit that I move the Amendment.

Dr. King: I wish that I could share the hope of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that the Parliamentary Secretary will be more amenable to the arguments of the Opposition than the Minister. I am afraid that the pleasant interlude we have just had is over and that we are back to the cold war. Indeed, in this Amendment we are right back to the beginning and the end of the argument on Clause 1. The Minister accepts the global sum proposed by the Burnham Committee, but he wishes to do something extra for a highly selective band of teachers between the ages of 27 and 36 years, and he wants to give a tiny extra amount to those with extra responsibilities.
The Burnham Committee says that the bulk of the global sum should be used to increase the basic scale for all teachers and that the mass of the money should be devoted to a flat increase of £50 a year. Inside the global sum the Minister wishes to distribute the extra bonus by cutting down the basic initial salary and by taking money from young teachers to give to some other teachers. The teaching profession says that this is wrong.
7.15 p.m.
We are suggesting in the Amendment what was the Burnham Committee's first reaction to the Minister so long ago, since when so many things have happened. If the Minister is dead keen and makes it a great matter that he should give certain increases to certain teachers—although he has not done that in a sensible way even if it seemed sensible


to him—and if he believes strongly in this, then let him pay for it out of the extra money which the Amendment asks him to provide. Above all, let him not do it at the expense of the young teacher. It is not an exaggeration to say that all the bitterness existing in the educational world would vanish overnight if the Amendment were accepted.
Earlier today the Minister tried to ride off and say that the group we were discussing, the graduates with an extra year's training, were not worse off because they were not getting less money under his settlement than they are receiving now, but the real criterion is whether any group is receiving less under the Minister's proposals than they were receiving under the Burnham proposals. If the Minister wants to raise the differentials further than the Burnham proposals, and if the Burnham Committee wants to raise basically one or two items in the teaching scale more than the Minister does, this seems to me to be the last chance of a compromise.
The compromise is to let them both have their way. Let the Minister concede that the Burnham Committee is right in saying that the teacher is underpaid when he enters the profession, and the Burnham Committee will gladly concede the Minister's stretching or increasing differentials and maintaining them at the present differential rates compared with the basic scale. Since the Minister has not moved on this matter for three months, I urge the Committee to take this last opportunity to persuade him to do it.

Mr. Chataway: The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that no teacher, whether in a primary or a secondary school, in an establishment for further education, or in a farm institute, shall receive less under an order made under the Bill than he would have received if my right hon. Friend had approved the proposals of the Burnham Committee under Section 89.
It is clear that this goes to the roots of the differences between us, but I find it rather hard to accept the word "compromise", which is used by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) as

applied to this suggestion, because I have never understood that the teachers' associations were opposed to increases in differentials and I have certainly never understood that we were opposed to increases at the bottom of the scale.
In this situation, I do not think that it could be described as a compromise if we were to accept the recommendations of the Burnham Committee in so far as they affected those whose salaries otherwise would be less under the Minister's proposals and we were prepared to add another £7 million to £8 million over the two-year period or £3 million to £4 million over the one-year period to fulfil my right hon. Friend's objectives. It is clear that, to increase the salaries of some of those on the basic scale and to increase the differentials, my right hon. Friend has had to propose in his pay scales sums for certain teachers which are less than those proposed by the Burnham Committee.
We debated this subject in Standing Committee, although in a rather different form, and hon. Members argued then, as they have argued today, that the Government should be willing to increase the total cost of the settlement to meet their wishes without diminishing any of the other proposals of the Burnham Committee. I pointed out then, and I must point out again today, that the salary increase now proposed, representing almost 7 per cent. and coming only fifteen months after the last increase of over 14 per cent., was already generous and that the Government could not be expected to increase it in the way suggested.
Although my right hon. Friend has not been able to modify his position on these major issues of the basic scale, which are now well known, he has at all times said that he would be responsive to constructive suggestions which fall generally within the framework of the principles which he has enunciated from the start. He has received three such suggestions, one from hon. Members opposite and two from the Burnham Committee. The first, which concerns teachers in special schools or classes, has already been dealt with on the last Amendment.
The second constructive suggestion came from the Burnham Technical Committee and concerns the differentials


between the scales for assistant lecturers, grade A, and assistant lecturers, grade B, in establishments of further education. This differential is at present £200 at all incremental points except at the maximum, where it is only £180. After considering the Committee's points, the Minister is ready to see the maximum increase by £20, so that the differential becomes uniformly one of £200 at all points; and he would suggest a similar change at the maximum of the grade B scale in farm institutes.
In passing, I should like to take the opportunity to make clear, in case it is not understood everywhere, that my right hon. Friend is ready to accept and embody in the appropriate order under the Bill the Burnham Technical Committee's proposal that a training addition should be allowed where a teacher has taken a course of teacher training at a technical teacher-training college. I hope that this will act as an incentive for more people to consider training before moving from industry into further education.
The third constructive suggestion came from the Burnham Farm Institutes Committee. My right hon. Friend is ready to meet its wishes and is willing to see introduced special responsibility allowances for certain assistant lecturers, grade B, similar to those already payable in further education.
I thought that the Committee would like to have these details and hope that they will be accepted as evidence that my right hon. Friend is ready to see his proposals modified and, if necessary, some marginal increases incurred in the total cost of these settlements where

they can be justified. It will be necessary to incorporate these changes in the orders amending the existing Reports, and, in preparing the necessary documents, I hope that the Department will have the benefit of advice and technical assistance from the other parties concerned.

I am unable to accept this Amendment. The Committee will appreciate that it is on a subject which has, I think, been very fully debated. To accept it, the Government would either have to abandon all the proposals which have been made for increases in differentials or add a further £7 million to £8 million over the two-year period. This we are unable to accept and, therefore, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for being reasonable on small matters. He should have been more reasonable on the larger issues. He has at last at this stage, the last stage of the Bill, seen reason on two or three minimal matters. The pity is, and it is a reflection on him, that he has not been reasonable on the broad issue which defines the dispute between the Minister and both sides of the Burnham Committee.
We would far rather that this dispute had been settled rather than aggravated. In view of this, it is with regret that I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to express their views on the Amendment in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 166, Noes 194.

Division No. 137.]
AYES
[7.26 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Evans, Albert


Ainsley, William
Cliffe, Michael
Fernyhough, E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Collick, Percy
Finch, Harold


Bacon, Miss Alice
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fitch, Alan


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Cronin, John
Fletcher, Eric


Bence, Cyril
Crossman, R. H. S.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Forman, J. C.


Blackburn, F.
Dalyell, Tam
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Boardman, H.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ginsburg, David


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gourlay, Harry


Boyden, James
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Diamond, John
Gunter, Ray


Brockway, A, Fenner
Dodds, Norman
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Donnelly, Desmond
Hamilton, William(West Fife)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hannan, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Harper, Joseph


Callaghan, James
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hayman, F. H.


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Healey, Denis




Henderson, Rt.Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
McLeavy, Frank
Silverman, Jullus (Aston)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Manuel, Archie
Slater, Mrs, Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Hilton, A. V.
Mapp, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Holman, Percy
Mendelson, J. J.
Small, William


Hooson, H. E.
Millan, Bruce
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Houghton, Douglas
Milne, Edward
Sorensen, R. W.


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Mitchlson, G. R.
Spriggs, Leslie


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Monslow, Walter
Steels, Thomas


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey
Moody, A. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morris, John
Stonehouse, John


Hunter, A. E.
Moyle, Arthur
Stones, William


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Neal, Harold
Swain, Thomas


Janner, Sir Burnett
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Symonds, J. B.


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Noel-BakerRt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Taverne, D.


Jeger, George
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
O'Malley, B. K.
Timmons, John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas
Wade, Donald


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Owen, Will
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Padley, W. E.
Warbey, William


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, Tudor


Kelley, Richard
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Weitzman, David


Kenyon, Clifford
Parker, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paton, John
Whitlook, William


King, Dr. Horace
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lawson, George
Peart, Frederick
Willey, Frederick


Ledger, Ron
Pentland, Norman
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Prentice, R. E,
Willis E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Probert, Arthur
Winterbottom, R. E.


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Woof, Robert


Loughlin, Charles
Redhead, E. C.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Lubbock, Eric
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Zilliacus, K.


Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robertson, John (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McBride, N.
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Mr. Sydney Irving and Mr. Grey.


MacColl, James
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)



McInnes, James
Ross, William



McKay, John (Wallsend)
Short, Edward



NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Altken, Sir William
Doughty, Charles
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Allason, James
Duncan, Sir James
Kirk, Peter


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Viscount


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Barber, Anthony
Emery, Peter
Leather, Sir Edwin


Barlow, Sir John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leavey, J. A.


Barter, John
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Leburn, Gilmour


Bateford, Brian
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lilley, F. J. P.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Fell, Anthony
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton
Finlay, Graeme
Loveys, Walter H.


Bell, Ronald
Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bidgood, John C.
Foster, John
MacArthur, Ian


Biffen, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McLaren, Martin


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardner, Edward
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bingham, R. M.
George, Sir John (Pollok)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bishop, F. P.
Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Glover, Sir Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Macpherson, Rt. Hn.Niall(Dumfries)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.


Bryan, Paul
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maitland, sir John


Buck, Antony
Hail, John (Wycombe)
Marshall, Douglas


Bullard, Denys
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Bullus, Wing Commander Erie
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hay, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Heald, Rt. Hon Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Chataway, Christopher
Hendry, Forbes
Mills, Stratton


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Miscampbell, Norman


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hocking, Philip N.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Cleaver, Leonard
Holland, Philip
Morrison, John


Cooke, Robert
Hollingworth, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Cooper, A. E.
Hughes Hallett, Vice Admiral John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cordle, John
Hughes-Young, Michael
Neave, Airey


Corfield, F. V.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Critchley, Julian
James, David
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cunningham, Knox
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Curran, Charles
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Partridge, E.


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F,
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peel, John







Percival, Ian
Shaw, M.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Shepherd, William
Touohe, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Turner, Colin


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Pitt, Dame Edith
Speir, Rupert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pott, Percivall
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stodart, J. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Prior, J. M. L.
Storey, Sir Samuel
Walker, Peter


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wall, Patrick


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Summers, Sir Spencer
Whitelaw, William


Pym, Francis
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Taylor, Frank (M'oh'st'r, Moss Side)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
Wise, A. R.


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Teeling, Sir William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Roberta, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Temple, John M.
Woollam, John


Roots, William
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Worsley, Marcus


Ropner, Col Sir Leonard
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)



St. Clair, M.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)
Mr. Frank Pearson and Mr. Rees.


Sharples, Richard
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended (in the. Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(REPEAL OF SECTION 89 OF EDUCATION ACT 1944.)

As from midnight of 31st March 1965, section 89 of the Education Act 1944 shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. Montgomery.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
My reason for moving the new Clause, with which I shall not detain the House long, is that I am perturbed that the Bill contains so little mention of Section 89 of the 1944 Act. This is something which should be clarified in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister is asking Parliament for new powers under the Bill because of the unsatisfactory arrangements made under Section 89 of the 1944 Act. Therefore, it has been demonstrated that that Section has not worked. The special powers sought by the Minister under the Bill are little short of a complete rejection of all forms of negotiation. The only thing that makes them tolerable is that they are not permanent.
If the Burnham arrangements under Section 89 of the 1944 Act have not worked, is it thought that they will work in 1965? I feel, therefore, that they should be scrapped and not left to be tinkered around with. I note that the new power of the Minister is expressly worded as being
otherwise than in accordance with Section 89 of the Education Act 1944".

I make no secret of the fact that the purpose of the new Clause is to try to force the Government to produce workable arrangements or to cut out some of the statuory provisions. The statutory control of teachers is far more rigid than that of civil servants. I remind my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that on Second Reading there was a great deal of support for the view that my right hon. Friend the Minister should take part in the salary negotiations but should not have the absolute power of veto.
I believe that my right hon. Friend should be able to put his case in any salary negotiating committee that is built up, but that he should put it alongside the representatives of the teachers' organisations and the representatives of the local authorities. Then, in the event of deadlock between the three bodies, the matter should go to arbitration, but my right hon. Friend must never be given the right to impose his will upon the representatives of the teachers' organisations and of the local authorities.
My right hon. Friend has admitted the concern of teachers' organisations against the Bill. We realise that it is a holding operation until 1965. It would restore a great deal of faith of teachers in the Minister if they felt that they would get a fair deal in salary negotiations. If they went in as equal partners with the local authorities and the Minister, and if the Minister would now agree to renounce his power of veto under Section 89, it would lead to greater cordiality between all sections of the teaching profession and all those who are interested in teachers' salaries.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have listened to the case which


the hon. Member has presented in a very reasonable manner, but I have been wondering why he has chosen 1965 as the date.

Mr. Montgomery: The reason is that I thought 1965 would be more acceptable to the Government. It would be desirable for the Section to be repealed forthwith, but I doubt whether the Government would accept that. I had hoped that no one would ask me that question, but my answer is that I selected 1965 in the hope that the Government would think it more reasonable because it would give them time to think of ways around the situation and to try to reach a satisfactory solution.

Dr. King: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for New-castle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery). His speeches are always thoughtful. While I believe that the motive behind the speech may be excellent, I hope that the House will reject the new Clause out of hand.
I should like to take up one or two of the things which the hon. Member said. He asked why the Government should not recognise the position that the arrangements under Section 89 have not worked. The simple fact is that the Burnham Committee and Section 89 of the Education Act, 1944, have worked ever since 1944. Until the present Minister and his two predecessors came along, there was no difficulty at all in applying Section 89.
I suggest to the House and to the hon. Gentleman that it is a very dangerous method of trying to force the hands of the Government by taking from the teaching profession the measure of protection which exists under Section 89. While by repealing Section 89 the hon. Member would remove the Minister's power to veto a Burnham award, he would also remove the Minister's power to approve a Burnham award.

Mr. Montgomery: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to me how Section 89 has helped the teachers in the present dispute?

Dr. King: I am coming to that now. I must confess that it is an attractive argument for a Conservative Member of Parliament to say to a Conservative

Minister about Section 89, "Why not be honest about it? Why not take off the Statute Book a Section which we have ignored during the last four months in such a way that we have even had to bring before the House a new Bill in order to legalise what we are doing?".
The date is of great significance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) was perfectly right to ask why 31st March, 1965, was chosen. I note the romantic touch—midnight on the 31st, an appropriate moment for the deed of darkness which the hon. Member is proposing. He is asking the Minister to legislate for the next Government. In the extremely unlikely event of that being a Conservative Government, having in mind what they have managed to do even with this Section in the Act of Parliament, I tremble to think what they would do if there were no such Section. Much more seriously, the next Government will not be a Conservative Government, and if the Minister were to accept the new Clause it would be made nugatory when the next Government came into power.
Seriously, I hope that this is only a temporary aberration on the part of the Conservative Minister of Education. I hope, with the hon. Gentleman, that in the months ahead we shall return to a proper negotiating body; that the Burnham Committee, which the Minister has temporarily slain, will be brought back to life; that the Minister will be able to make his representations to the Committee about the kind of financial coverage which the Government are pre pared to make to any kind of negotiation; and that the Minister himself may even take part in such negotiation. But I hope that the general principle that was formulated by the First Secretary—

Mr. Montgomery: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again.

Dr. King: Do not apologise.

Mr. Montgomery: If the hon. Gentle man believes that the Minister should be represented on the negotiating body

Dr. King: I did not say that.

Mr. Montgomery: I thought the hon. Gentleman did. He said that he did not disagree with it.

Dr. King: The hon. Gentleman had better read my speech in the Official Report. I have taken a view on this all along. I do not share the view of many of my colleagues. I was going to say when I was interrupted that I stand by the view of the present First Secretary of State when he was Minister of Education in 1944, when he followed the example of the greatest Minister of Education this century has produced, Mr. Fisher, who set up the original Burnham Committee on principles which Ministers have followed ever since. The principle enunciated by the First Secretary of State in this House in 1944 was that the local authorities were the employers of the teachers, and that between them—local authority and teacher, employer and employee—they should negotiate a salary and it should go to the Minister for his approval or disapproval. That has worked very well. All I said was that I saw no reason why the Minister should not indicate to such a Committee his general views from time to time—and this was offered to him, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
I hops that the Minister will not take from the Education Act, 1944, the greatest Act of this century, anything, and certainly not Section 89.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Cole: Of all the things that we have been discussing today, this is something to which I have especially addressed my mind for many months and something on which I have addressed a letter to the Minister.
I am sorry on this occasion to differ from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), because we have agreed on so many things in education. With him, I pay tribute to the success of the Burnham Committee in the past, and in this I would go further back than four years. It is, however, less than right to say that the present matter is the sort of dispute which has arisen because of the findings of the Burnham Committee.
Like the hon. Member, I have been in the House for a good many years, and my recollection is that this is at least the third dispute over the last four or five years. All of them have in one way or another arisen from the same cause, but this is the first time that the views of the Minister, rightly or wrongly, have been implemented in a Bill. I think that the

present action being taken by my right hon. Friend is an indication of the gradual decline in the otherwise successful relations with the Burnham Committee in the past.
The hon. Gentleman has just spoken about a recommendation freely negotiated between the employers and the employees or their representatives. I should like to think that, with proper representation of all the teachers and of the local education authorities, and with representatives of, not observers from, the Ministry of Education, a proper solution might well be found at the right time for a new salary award. I should like to think that something much more important than that might be found, that there might be found an amicable state of affairs which would do nothing but enhance the status of the profession. That is what I am concerned about far more than the question of the Government implementing the award or what the actual award is.
I deplore the continual struggles, in which I have participated as a member of this House, of the last four or five years. They have perforce raised the views of many members of the public for or against the teachers or for or against the Minister, with no possible gain either to the profession or to the Minister. The profession inevitably loses, however, whether it deserves to or not, but the Minister goes on as do Governments. A new system should mean a gain for the teachers, and they have nothing to lose by it.
The perpetuation of the present arrangements in Burnham could only be to the disadvantage of the teachers. This would be so even if all the decisions in the last few years had been 100 per cent. perfect and had been finally approved by the Minister, who must provide 30·40 per cent. of the money. The public might still criticise and any criticism would be applied to the profession and not necessarily to the Ministry and the Government.
Moreover, I am not convinced, in these days of arbitration and with the growth that has taken place over the last few years of successful representation by trade unions, that a Burnham Committee which was satisfactory thirty or forty years ago is necessarily satisfactory in the present day and age. I have always thought it peculiar that we had a body consisting of one side providing 60 or 70 per cent.


of the money and the other side receiving all the money, finally agree on a settlement after months of negotiation and then have to go to a third party which, by virtue of providing the rest of the money, has the final say.
If I were a member of the Burnham Committee I should feel all the time a possible frustration and waste of time in the knowledge that what I was deciding to do might be nullified in the end because the money would not be forthcoming. That is the history of the dispute of two years ago when the award was cut down by some 40 per cent. Possibly it had to be cut, but there was an air of unreality about it all.
The difference between the final award and the one asked for originally by Burnham was a considerable number of millions of pounds. That seems to be quite fantastic. All parties acted with sincerity and integrity. Therefore, if there was a considerable disparity—the making up of which we are partly doing now—there must be a gap in this negotiating machinery which must be closed.
I want to be practical about this. I have my thoughts on what the new Burnham should look like. I believe that it is shown beyond peradventure that the present set-up of Burnham vis-à-vis the Minister is not producing the answers—and I place no blame on anyone for that. But it is time we gave our thoughts to this problem and evolved a new set up, with the same background but with a new constitution and a new method of working.
First, I do not like the idea of observers—that is a word I do not like in many connotations and certainly not in a matter like this—from the Ministry of Education. However, I see the difficulty. If we have members, representing the Minister, who can cast their vote for or against an award, the Minister having communicated his views to them, and afterwards the matter merely goes to the Minister, who promptly confirms what his representatives have said, we shall get nowhere.
On the other hand, I feel it necessary that the Minister's views should be made clear from the outset. I feel that some of the suggestions made in the past might have had value if we could have gone further with them in this connection. I

am brought to the up-to-date solution of this matter by suggesting that the new Burnham should have proper representation of teachers and of local authorities—as it has at the moment—and representatives of the Minister who will have the power not to observe and report back but to speak and vote on the Ministers behalf as regards what he is or is not prepared to agree to. Then, if the Committee cannot come to a decision on the basis of all the facts, views and possibilities before it, the matter should go to arbitration without further reference to the Minister at all. Otherwise, the Minister would be judge and jury in his own case, and that might be worse than the present situation.
I believe that if we had had such a committee as I suggest during the last six or twelve months, and if that committee had felt that it was able to make a final settlement which would be honoured, we should never have had this Bill. I believe the Bill represents a failure of the system.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): The hon. Gentleman is now getting a little wide. I am subject to correction by the Parliamentary Secretary, but I understand that Clause 89 deals only with the Minister's veto.

Mr. Chataway: It goes a little wider than that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It deals with the power that the Minister has either to accept or reject a proposal by the Burnham Committee.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Nevertheless I do not think that we can go into the whole question of the future constitution of the Burnham Committee, except just in passing.

Mr. Cole: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for his support. I will endeavour to control my remarks, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it is impossible to talk about the Minister's power under Clause 89 without referring in some sense to the Burnham Committee. I will endeavour to confine my remarks to the question in passing.

Dr. King: Clause 89 not only gives the Minister power to accept or veto a decision of the Burnham Committee but power to set up a committee and say what its constitution should be.

Mr. Cole: I am grateful. I am getting help from both sides of the House. However, I will bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if only for the sake of time, but there are other matters to be dealt with. I said on Second Reading that I, other hon. Members, and I am sure the teachers and their organisations, are all tired of what has been called this "civil war" inside the profession of late—not inside the profession but between it and the Government. Let me say here now that I believe that under the present system this would go on happening even if we had a Minister of different politics. I believe that it is inevitable and inherent in the present set up.
8.0 p.m.
I believe that we have come a long way from the days when this Committee was the right kind of thing for this kind of matter. I have made my suggestions as to what I think will happen. Without trying to be omniscient, I am certain that in a few years something of the kind that I have suggested will be brought in. If it is not, I foresee a repetition of all these matters with which we have had to deal.
I hope that within the next few months the Minister, with the representatives of Burnham, will get together in a spirit of good will and with the intention of trying to find a solution to these difficulties within the ambit of Section 89. We do not wish to abandon that section. We can form a new kind of constitution under the aegis of that Section so that for at least a number of years we shall have peace in this profession.
Let us not overlook the fact that the whole purpose of the Bill, and the larger purpose of the 1944 Act, secondary to the question of the education of our children, was to bring peace and happiness into this great profession and make sure that those who had the responsibility of teaching our children were happy in their jobs. I do not believe that we can carry these disputes on our shoulders indefinitely. I do not know whether the abandonment of Section 89 is the first shot in the battle, but the scheme operated under that Section will have to go. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us—I do not think he will necessarily accept the Amendment, because, despite this Bill, it would leave him naked for the next two years—that the Minister has been addressing his mind

to these things, because I am certain that for the future we want something different from what we have had in the past.

Mr. Willey: The House ought to be told of our difficulty. We have to discuss this in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education. We know that he is addressing a public meeting, but we should get our priorities right. The Minister's first responsibility is to the House, and he ought to be here. It is outrageous that these speeches are being made from his side of the House, directly addressed to him, and he is not here to hear them.
I do not, cast any reflections on the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he would not have arranged to have an unavoidable engagement to address a public meeting on the day when the Report and Third Reading of a Bill in which he was personally involved were being taken in the House. I am sure that this is an example of the slap-dash, shoddy, inefficiency with which the House is treated by the Government. The Leader of the House could have inquired of the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any engagements today.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am sure that he will appreciate the difficulty in which I find myself. We are discussing whether this new Clause should be read a second time. It may be in order to make reference to the fact that the Minister is not present, but I do not think that the hon. Member should go too far on that subject.

Mr. Willey: I shall not go too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was conscious of the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite were going to speak at length to protract the proceedings until the right hon. Gentleman returned, and I think that this is an abuse of the House. That is my impression, and that is why the intervention—

Mr. Cole: On a point of order. I hope that the hon. Member for Sunder-land, North (Mr. Willey) is not referring to me. I have no knowledge of my right hon. Friend. As far as I knew, he was having a much-needed dinner.

Mr. Willey: I am conscious of the fact that broad points have been raised about the constitution of the Burnham Committee. Those points hardly arise directly out of the new Clause, which is directed to the repeal of Section 89 of the 1944 Act, but these points, if directed to anyone, should be directed to the Minister who has made this his personal responsibility.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again. If he is correct in saying that these points scarcely arise out of this new Clause, then we must not pursue them further in the debate on the new Clause.

Mr. Willey: If I said that, I went further than I ought to have done and I retract what I said because that would be a reflection on the Chair.
I am saying that within the ambit of this new Clause matters have been raised which are far-reaching indeed. Reference has been made to the future of the Burnham Committee, and I think that it would be unfair on the Parliamentary Secretary to expect him to reply to the matters which have been raised. I do not complain about the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) raising them, but the House ought to be treated with proper respect. If these matters are to be raised, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be here, and I ask whether I would be in order in moving the adjournment of our proceedings to await the return of the right hon. Gentleman. If he is not present, we are in grave difficulty. We know where he is. The right hon. Gentleman has made an election which ought not to have been forced on him.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member would be in order in asking leave to move the Adjournment of the House, but, equally, I would be in order in not accepting that Motion. I think that we should get on with the debate on the new Clause

Mr. Ede: For the sake of greater accuracy I have obtained a copy of Section 89 of the Education Act, 1944. I think that the definition given by the Parliamentary Secretary was rather too narrow, and I hope that I might be allowed to read what I regard as the

relevant portions of the Section. I had the advantage of being Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education at the time when this Act was before the House as a Bill, and Section 89, which started as Clause 82 of the Bill, gave us more trouble than the rest of the Sections of this Act put together.
This is what it enacts:
The Minister shall secure that for the purpose of considering the remuneration of teachers there shall be one or more committees approved by him consisting of persons appointed by bodies representing local education authorities and teachers respectively, and it shall be the duty of any such committee to submit to the Minister, whenever they think fit or whenever they may be required by him so to do, such scales of remuneration for teachers as they consider suitable; and whenever a scale of remuneration so submitted is approved by the Minister, he may by Order make such provision as appears to him to be desirable for the purpose of securing that the remuneration paid by local education authorities to teachers is in accordance therewith.
That is subsection (1), and subsection (2) says:
The Minister shall nominate the person who is to be the chairman of any committee approved by him for the purposes of this section.
What the new Clause proposes to do is to repeal all the words that I have read, and as far as I can follow makes no proposal for what is to be substituted for them. It is a purely destructive new Clause. It wipes out something which has existed and which has worked like all human institutions do, sometimes very well, and sometimes very badly. Human nature being what it is, anything that takes the place of Section 89 will do exactly the same thing. We have no proposal before us this evening for anything in substitution of the section which I have read.
There have been hints about what people would like to see in a new Clause, and I have a few ideas myself, but I am not going to spend much time on them this evening. I did not utter a single word in the House, or during the very long Committee stage of the Bill in 1954, when this Section was going through. It was the one Section on which I said nothing. The right hon. Member who is now the First Secretary undertook sole responsibility for getting that Section through the House.
As I said earlier, there was a time when I was first negotiating the problem of teachers' salaries, as a teacher, when we had 317 local education authorities, each with a different scale. The teachers employed by each local education authority went to their authority to negotiate, and these negotiations were carried out without much regard to what was being paid elsewhere. This was not a system which was likely to bring about a properly settled education service, because local education authorities were always finding little extra bits that they could put on to a salary scale in order to attract people from other local education authority areas.
Then, Mr. Fisher, after he was appointed Minister of Education during the First World War, instituted a committee which consisted of representatives of local education authorities and of teachers, which first negotiated four scales. Scale 4, for London, was the most remunerative scale. The Rhondda Valley astounded everybody by also asking for Scale 4. Scale 3 applied to areas which were pretty well urbanised, Scale 2 to less urbanised areas, and Scale 1 to areas that were almost purely rural.
This led to exactly the same kind of poaching arrangement that had existed before. In those days there were separate committees for elementary schools, as they were called, and schools other than elementary schools—the old endowed grammar schools that drew money from public funds under the Act of 1902, and the municipal grammar schools which were the main result of the Act of 1902. The former complicated arrangement was thus steadily altered, until we had one scale for elementary schools and another for schools other than elementary.
In those days many people found it very difficult to understand the difference between an elementary school and a school other than an elementary school, but it was always possible to tell when one went into a school, because, if it was an elementary school, the conscience clause had to be displayed, whereas if it was not an elementary school the clause did not apply. In that kind of haphazard arrangement the negotiations concerning teachers' salaries were carried on for elementary schools by 317 local education

authorities and for schools other than elementary schools by county councils and county borough councils.
In spite of the difficulties and complexities the system worked reasonably well. Lord Burnham became chairman of one of the first of the committees, and as he was chairman he gave his name to the committee. This has persisted ever since, although it has long been removed from any connection with the Burnham family.
The Act of 1944 had as its main purpose the unifying of our education. One thing that it did was to abolish elementary schools. It established a progressive system of education.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but only Section 89 of the 1944 Act is relevant to a discussion of the new Clause.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am not disputing your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but Section 89 provided for the creation of committees. It is a duty placed on the Minister to establish these committees, and I was trying to show how the original complex system of committees was gradually reduced until we had one committee which dealt with all grades of schools maintained by local education authorities. I do not want to say any more about it than that. We had one committee which dealt with the whole question, and that committee got down to one scale of salaries.
That does not mean that the committee, or the panels on the committees, were ever unanimous. Today, in many industries, we have two panels, one representing the employers and the other the employees. They meet separately and decide what their policy will be, and then the two panels come together, and there is an argument, in the course of which each side tries to move the other from its original position. In the course of negotiations of this kind it is not unknown for differences to arise. Those of my hon. Friends who are skilled in trade union negotiations will know that that is true in respect of many industries.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Collective bargaining.

Mr. Ede: Yes—collective bargaining. On the whole the system has worked well, until the last three Ministers, including


the present one, experienced some difficulties. Prior to that there was no serious dispute about the working of Section 89. But for the interference of Ministers there would have been little to complain of up to the present time.
It is true that certain organisations on both sides wished to come in. Some teachers' organisations which were not included when the first committee was set up in 1944 resented the fact, and some local education authority associations objected to the more powerful position in which the Association of Education Committees found itself. [Interruption.] When my hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies have settled their differences, perhaps I can be allowed to continue my speech. I am sorry to have to interrupt my hon. Friends.

Mr. Cole: The right hon. Gentleman has kindly read out parts of the original Section 89.

Mr. Ede: I read the whole of it.

Mr. Cole: It includes the words "approved by the Minister". Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to address his mind to the point that I have made, that all the time—sofrequently as to become more than a coincidence—those words are made part of the paying authority in respect of recommendations of the Burnham Committee? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the system can go on working even as satisfactorily as in the past under those circumstances?

Mr. Ede: I think that it would go on working. It is astonishing how vitality remains in the most dilapidated sort of structure. I have no doubt that it could go on working. Whether it would work well is another matter. But, clearly, at some stage the approval of the Minister has to be obtained, because this Clause would place on the Minister the duty of making an order when he has approved the scale, and from that moment every teacher employed in a maintained school would have to receive the salary which the Minister approved.
I recollect as long ago as 1913, at a conference of the National Union of Teachers, I moved an amendment that there should be a national scale of salaries and that it should be enforced

on local authorities by what was then the Board of Education. When I carried that amendment to an Executive motion and the officers left the platform, the then senior president of the union said to me, "That was a damned good speech and a damned silly amendment". But I have lived long enough to see the spirit of that amendment included in the law of the land in the form of Section 89.
Sooner or later, we shall pass out of the present twilight system in which Section 89 is virtually superseded and this Bill will take its place for the time being. The Minister will construct the scales and enforce them. I want to see what will follow the present twilight arrangement. What is the new day to be like? I have no doubt that between now and 31st March, 1965, a new Clause will have to be devised in which there will be arrangements for the future remuneration of teachers. What is common ground on this side of the House is that all these things should be settled by collective bargaining between employers and employed. Effective steps should be provided by which an agreement, when reached, could be enforced.
I do not object to the need for Ministerial approval. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman might disapprove after the collective bargaining has taken place. That is inherent in the present system. But I do not want to see Section 89 repealed, as is proposed in the new Clause, until we know the shape of things to come and what will be the new machinery. What arrangement will be made to enforce a decision which has been reached? I agree that a discussion on that aspect would not be in order in a debate on this Clause. But I think we are entitled to say that we do not want a new Clause which merely wipes out the existing Section 89 before we know what is to be put in its place.
I will not express any views of my own on the matter. I believe that all parties will have to face the difficulties which have arisen in the last three or four years, and the removal of the party opposite from power—its Ministers have created those difficulties—would be one of the best ways of getting on with the job properly. I should be sorry to see the new arrangement built up under the present Government. But a new scheme will have to be brought into being.
I believe that thought should be given to the way in which this can be done. The local authorities, as employers, the teachers, as employees, and the Minister, as the person who will probably have to enforce any agreement which is finally reached, should all be thinking about what the shape of the new structure should be. I implore the House not to destroy Section 89 until we have created something to take its place. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us the way in which the Minister's mind is working.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has criticised my right hon. Friend in the past for speaking too much and, by inference, for delegating too little, so it seems strange to me that the right hon. Gentleman should be outraged this evening when my right hon. Friend, who has gone to a meeting for an hour or so, delegates to me the task of replying to this Amendment.
When he put down this new Clause, my hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) probably did not envisage that the discussion would go quite so wide on Section 89. I suggested to the Chair that Section 89 did go rather wider than the power of veto, and I also had not considered that we should have quite so wide-ranging a debate. But without question it has been an interesting and a useful debate.
Here, of course, is the major task that will face us when this Bill is passed. The effect of this new Clause would be that after 31st March, 1965, if there were not further legislation, there would be no statutory provision for committees to recommend salary scales for approval as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, and no provision for making new salary scales effective.
I think that there is wide agreement that the events of this year, following upon those of 1961, have shown that some changes are required in the machinery and procedures for determining teachers' salaries for the future. In that connection, I was particularly interested in what the right hon. Member said. My right hon. Friend proposed in his letter of 12th March to the chairman

of the Burnham Committee that all the parties concerned should have a full opportunity to discuss with him and with each other what these changes should be.
I remind my hon. Friends, particularly, of a passage in the Minister's speech on Second Reading. He said:
I am willing to see every issue, including the Minister's statutory powers, in these matters, fully and frankly examined. The Government have no intention of avoiding the controversial questions that will arise and and I should like to mention some of them to the House."—[Official Report, 25th April, 1963; Vol. 676. c. 445.)
He then listed a number of the undoubtedly controversial questions which will come up in the discussions to which some reference has been made this evening.
I agree to some extent with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, East that the difficulties in which we find ourselves have been due in part to the procedures which Section 89 of the Education Act has obliged us to follow. For example, under that Section the Minister had no standing to act until the proposed scales of remuneration had been formally submitted to him, whereas it might on occasion have been more helpful to the Burnham Committee to have known at an early stage in its proceedings what views the Minister held on matters on which it was about to negotiate.

Mr. Lubbock: There is nothing in Section 89 which debars the Minister conveying his views to the Burnham Committee.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Chataway: This is the practice that has been followed under Section 89. I am coming in a moment to the point which perhaps is in the mind of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) as to whether it may be that satisfactory arrangements could be found without amendments to Section 89. Section 89 is so drafted—and this is a question of drafting—that new salary scales can be introduced only if the three parties, the teachers, the employers and the Minister, can all reach agreement. Yet it makes no provision for resolving the deadlock which must follow if any one of the three parties is unable to agree with the other two.
For all these reasons, and for others, there may be a presumption in the minds of some hon. Members that amendment of Section 89 is inescapable. It may be that time will prove them right, but I think that we should be wrong to jump to that conclusion and agree upon it now in advance of a discussion in the manner proposed by this new Clause. I realise that one of the parties which will be negotiating in these discussions, the National Association of Schoolmasters, has made no secret of its dislike of the existing Burnham negotiating machinery and would like to see it swept away and replaced by new arrangements which, among other things, would give greater prominence to the views of minor organisations. I have no doubt that this matter will be thoroughly aired during the course of the forthcoming discussions.
Even taking account of these strongly held views, I do not think that we can leave out the possibility that the necessary changes in the machinery for determining teachers' salaries might be brought about without the entire repeal of Section 89, as my hon. Friend proposes. I got the impression from his speech that it is some part of his intention to ensure by these drastic means that discussions about future machinery shall both begin very soon and proceed quickly with the aim of completing their work and bringing new arrangements in force within the period, which is now rather under two years, before the powers of this Bill expire on 31st March, 1965. If so, I have considerable sympathy with that motive. It is certainly my right hon. Friend's intention that no time should be wasted over it. He has already arranged to see all the parties involved before the Summer Recess.
As I am sure the House will appreciate, the matters to be discussed are both complex and delicate and there are many interests to be considered. If the discussions were still incomplete as 31st March, 1965, approached, and this new Clause had been adopted, the parties would be faced with entering an indefinite period when there would be no legal means of introducing revised salary scales, even agreed ones. They would be under great pressure to con-

clude their discussions in time to avoid such a situation, with the risk that important decisions might be taken prematurely and in haste through the imposition of this kind of rigid timetable.
I hope therefore, that in view of what I have said my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his new Clause.

Mr. Willey: I want to raise two points to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. One is the absence of his right hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am in a difficulty. We are on Report and I do not think that the hon. Member is entitled to speak twice on Report.

Mr. Willey: Before the Minister sits down?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Before the Minister sits down, by all means.

Mr. Willey: I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary two questions. First, is he aware that I was raising the question of the absence of his right hon. Friend to answer this discussion relating to him not with any purpose of it reflecting upon the hon. Gentleman, but in order that it should reflect upon the Chief Patronage Secretary. This ought to have been borne in mind when the business for this week was agreed and announced to the House. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates that this is a matter on which we would have wished to hear the right hon. Gentleman.
I want to refer to another question which the Parliamentary Secretary has raised and which peculiarly relates to the right hon. Gentleman. This is the question—because this is still very obscure: what is the position about the standing invitation which Sir William Alexander says was conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and to his Department? After the debate that we had yesterday we cannot go on having replies such as we have had in this case, where the reply, apparently, is, "Yes, the information was conveyed to my predecessor, but he did not convey it to me," and "Yes, the information was conveyed to my Department, but my Department did not convey it to me." We should get this cleared up, because it is a question


which reflects upon the credibility of Sir William Alexander and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister.

Mr. Chataway: I am a little puzzled how this exactly ties in with the repeal of Section 89, but I will do my best to answer the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to impugn Sir William Alexander in any way, but no doubt this arises as a result of a misunderstanding. I wish to make that absolutely clear; but it is equally the case that we do not have in the Department any recollection or record of a firm invitation of that kind.

Mr. Short: The Parliamentary Secretary indicated that there was a possibility that a change in the Government's design could be effected without repealing this Section. So far as I can judge, the only suggestion that he made for a change in the Burnham machinery was that there should be some means of making the Minister's views known during the negotiations. Supposing that there is a deadlock after that, has the Minister any ideas about what might happen then?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I do not wish to be drawn very far into this discussion. I know that my right hon. Friend equally would not wish at this stage to commit himself to a series of views in this respect, for this, after all, is a matter for negotiation, and my right hon. Friend is most anxious that we should enter into these discussions, which he is to begin within the next month or two, without prior commitments. I think that it would be wrong of me to commit my right hon. Friend on the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Short: We need not beat about the bush. We all know that everyone would agree to sensible changes in the Burnham machinery provided that there is proper machinery, at the end of the story, where the Minister is not responsible for settling disputes. The Minister has never committed himself on this at all. Cannot the Parliamentary Secretary say something about it?

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend has never said, "I do not want the power of veto". He has never said, "I enter these negotiations determined to retain the power of veto". His words are on the record, that he is prepared to see these

matters, including the statutory powers of the Minister, fully and frankly examined during these discussions.

Mr. Short: But answer the question.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Member can put up five or six alternatives if he wishes, but I do not propose to be pinned down to any one of them because I am sure that my right hon. Friend must discuss this matter with his partners in the education service. It would be wrong for him, at this stage, to make up his mind whether he wants a ministerial veto or a Pilkington-type commission or arbitration. There are a number of alternatives. The hon. Member will agree that it would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to prejudge the discussions which he is to have.

Mr. Montgomery: We have had an interesting and useful debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1.—(POWERS TO MAKE ORDERS AS TO REMUNERATION.)

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out from "shall" to "the" in line 12 and to insert "take effect as from".
This is a technical Amendment which in no way alters the main purpose of the Bill or its effect, as has been explained to the House on previous occasions. The Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, would require orders made under the Bill to be laid before Parliament before they came into operation. Under the Bill as it stands, this could not be done in the case of the first orders to be made, since, under the wording of subsection (5) as drafted, they would be deemed to have come into operation on 1st April, 1963. My right hon. Friend therefore thought it desirable to suggest this Amendment in order that there will be no possible legal doubt as to the validity of these orders.
If the Amendment is accepted, the first orders will provide that they shall come into operation on a date after they have been laid before Parliament and that they shall take effect from 1st April. I understand that there are a number of precedents for this procedure. It will both meet the requirements of the Act of 1946 and enable the


increases of teachers' salaries to be backdated to 1st April. In short, this is a technical Amendment designed to reduce any possible doubts about the legal validity of the first orders laid under the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out from "be" to the end of line 29 and to insert:
of no effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
This is a point of some substance and importance. It was discussed in Standing Committee, and for that reason I will be brief. The Government propose to supersede the Burnham Committee and to resort to Government action defining the scales in the new provisions for teachers' salaries. This is obviously a matter which ought to be done by affirmative Resolution.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here, because we both served on the Committee on Delegated Legislation and I have not the slightest doubt that he would agree that this matter comes within the category of matters which ought to be decided by affirmative Resolution. I think that we ought to do it. In Standing Committee the right hon. Gentleman advanced one reason only against so doing—and in view of what has happened today I have every sympathy with him. If we resort to affirmative Resolution, the Government find time and put the matter down on the Order Paper. Having heard what the Patronage Secretary has done today in putting down this Bill when the Minister had a long-standing engagement of some importance, I can appreciate the Minister's anxiety if the discussion of this important matter is left to Government initiative. This is not a reason we can accept.
8.45 p.m.
There is nothing in the argument on the timetable. We know—every teacher knows—that he will get retrospective payment from 1st August. The Order, which ought to be in affirmative form, would have to be accepted by both Houses before the Summer Recess. There is no difficulty whatsoever in the Government finding time for this. Constitutionally they are obliged to do so.
Having put the constitutional view, which I think the Government should accept, I will put a personal view. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would recognise that these scales and this order are proper matters to be discussed in the House, particularly as he has told us that there are to be revisions between now and when the scales are to be introduced. We have had one issue raised in the course of the debate which put this graphically. The Parliamentary Secretary has made some concession towards teachers teaching in special schools. This is not sufficiently generous to satisfy us on this side of the House.
What have we to do—pray against the Order? In this context we are not really complaining about the Order, except that it is not sufficient. We are faced with the difficulty that it appears on the Order Paper. We as Parliamentarians know that it has no more significance than that this is the device which the Opposition have to adopt to get a debate in the House. It appears that we are seeking to annul the Order. We have reached the stage where the Government have made it impossible now to fall back on Burnham. They have said "We do not intend to do this and you either accept what we are putting to the House or you do not accept it." We cannot amend an Order. We think it is right and proper constitutionally and fair politically for the Government forthrightly to accept responsibility for what they are doing and not put the Opposition in the position of having to pray the annulment of the Order.
I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, who served on the Committee, would have been here to support my view. I regret his absence, because the Government showed some lack of consideration at any rate for my own position. They knew that I was heavily engaged on the Television Bill, propping up the Government against their opponents on their own back benches. Notwithstanding the service I was rendering the Government, they chose to have this Bill first discussed in Standing Committee at the same time as we were discussing the Television Bill. I was therefore unable to make a contribution in Standing Committee on this point
I hope now that the Parliamentary Secretary is briefed by the right hon.


Gentleman to say that in the circumstances it is proper for this to be in the form of affirmative Resolution. We know that there will be discussions through the usual channels. We know that there are difficulties at this time of the year, but the Government can take our assurance that we would take every effective action we could as an Opposition to ensure that the consideration of the Order was expedited.

Mr. Boyden: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's absence from the debate, I thought I would look up the opinions he had in 1953 when he served on the Committee on Delegated Legislation. I find that in those days he was a strong supporter of the maximum supervision in the House over delegated legislation. He took quite an active part in putting forward the views of back benchers to ensure that the maximum scrutiny was applied. I hope he has not changed his mind in the intervening ten years, because if he has it is rather significant. If he has changed his mind he now finds himself in the position, probably for the first time, when he wants to use rather more dictatorial powers than have been used in the past, and he finds himself on the other side.
To give an indication of what were the Minister's views in 1953, I shall quote from the Report of the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation, published on 27th October, 1953. The Minister, asking questions of Sir Cecil Thomas Carr—about a whole series of Board of Trade Regulations which, in the Parliamentary sense of discussion, were relatively minor—said:
You agree it is very important for Members of Parliament to be able to keep control of this?
That is something, I would say, which was the third degree of Statutory Instruments lower than a negative Instrument. The right hon. Gentleman said later:
We on this Committee are simply considering how best the House of Commons can supervise delegated legislation and what improvements are required in our procedure.
I am certain that the implication of that is that the maximum control possible in this House was to be exercised through the recommendations of this particular Committee. He later said:
If we make certain recommendations we may seem to many hon. Members to be depriving them of some right which they

regarded as a much bigger one. The very fact that prayers have been regarded as a means for initiating debates and not simply annulling orders, while I agree with you that that may have its undesirable side, does make the whole thing very much more important from the point of view of private Members?
Later on the right hon. Gentleman said:
There are two more points I want to raise arising out of the negative Resolutions. Is not it fair to say that the discussion in the House is in fact very often a protest against the policy rather than a serious attempt to reverse policy? Everyone knows that if you vote against the cheese ration being only two ounces and the Minister and his permanent advisers say that the cheese is not there, the Minister must annul the order next day, but is not it rather a serious matter to deprive the House of Commons of the right of protesting against the fact that the cheese ration should fall to two ounces or whatever it may be?
If the Minister has changed his mind since then it means that he regards the discussion of these new scales of pay for the whole of the teaching profession as being less important than a discussion on the ration of 2 ozs. of cheese. I can hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman could have changed his views to that extent. If he has, he has a lot of explaining to do to hon. Members.
One other matter came out of the Select Committee from which I have quoted. A great deal was done to satisfy the Committee that delegated legislation was most carefully considered and that all the Departments had elaborate procedures of consultation and so on. For this reason, I turned up the part of the Select Committee's Report referring to the Ministry of Education and found that this Department is among, as it were, the weakest Departments in ensuring that the delegated legislation is drawn up effectively. In this connection there are two paragraphs in the Report concerning a Memorandum which the Select Committee sent to all Departments. They state:
We, in this Department, are concerned with so little new legislation that we have no regular procedure for drafting of the kind mentioned in…
the Memorandum. The next paragraph states:
We have no Standing Committee in this office for drafting regulations, partly because our output of Statutory Instruments is relatively small compared with other Departments.
On these two counts—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman, as the record shows, is a great man for protecting the


interests of back benchers in supervising Statutory Instruments and on the second count that his own Department is particularly weak in preparing these matters when they come before the House, there should be an affirmative Resolution and facilities provided for hon. Members to discuss the matter.

Dr. King: We did not adequately discuss the Amendment in Standing Committee. It was one of a series of Amendments grouped together and, for this reason, it is worth emphasising how important the issue that we are discussing is, to remind the House that the Government are legislating on teachers' salaries by means of a Statutory Instrument and that the House will have to either accept or reject this whole complex salary scale structure. This is one of the reasons why the power of the Executive is growing.
There are, however, two ways of legislating even by regulation. Under the affirmative Resolution procedure, the Government will have to find time, and the Minister will have to attend the House to move these salary scales and to explain all the details. Under the negative Resolution procedure, the Government will print the new scales, and then wait to see whether the Opposition table a Prayer for annulment within the following 40 days. In this latter case, the onus is put on the Opposition. They will have to move the rejection of something, much of which they approve. They will have to table a Prayer for the annulment of the proposed salary scales when they come in.
Governments obviously prefer the negative Resolution procedure. It is less trouble for them. There is always the hope that nothing will happen over them, but I believe—and I am certain that hon. Members on both sides who think this out must also believe—that important regulations should be moved affirmatively.
I will not now refer, as I did in the Standing Committee, to the days when the Tory Party was in opposition and was using every method it possibly could to obstruct the Labour Government; when it was attacking the Labour Government for governing by regulation and urging that every Statutory

Instrument should, whenever possible, be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. Since Lord Dilhorne is in the news at the moment, let me quote the eminent ex-Attorney-General on this subject. He said:
It is of vital importance that, if this power of delegation should go on—I think it must go on in a limited degree—that it should be subject to proper safeguards…we shall have to be careful to see that Ministers do not get wider powers than are necessary, and to see that Regulations do not slip through the net."—[Official Report, 17th May, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 243.]
One of the ways in which we can carry out what Lord Dilhorne then said it was our Parliamentary duty to carry out is to see that whenever an important piece of this kind of legislation comes before us the Minister must move it and explain it to the House. Surely, in view of all that has happened during the last four months over the Instrument that was before the House setting up teachers' salaries, no one can argue that it is not of importance. It has torn up the whole fabric of local authority and ministerial relationship, and has brought the teachers nearer to a national strike than they have been in the century. This is pre-eminently the kind of legislation which our Parliamentary procedure demands should be dealt with by the affirmative Resolution method.
The only thing that the Parliamentary Secretary said when we spoke of this in the Standing Committee was that the negative Resolution procedure would waste time and that the affirmative Resolution procedure would be quicker. That is certainly not true. If the Government have done the work, they have time before 1st August to lay the scales before the House, have a general discussion about them, repeat the procedure in another place, and carry them out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said, we would be willing to co-operate in such a procedure. If the negative Resolution procedure is adopted we on this side still have the power to subject the scales to a long debate, which will take almost the same amount of Parliamentary time.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will concede us this point. We are not asking him to say that the Minister is wrong in what he has done. We are asking him to say that at least what has


been done is of sufficient importance for the House of Commons to treat it in the proper Parliamentary way.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I support what has been said by my hon. Friends and I hope that we shall have a satisfactory reply on the Amendment. We are entitled to complain of the Minister's absence on this occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) has quoted a remark which the Minister himself made on this subject of delegation, and here on this Amendment and on the new Clause which we have just been discussing.
I think that the House has been very shabbily treated by the absence of the Minister from our debates on this important matter. It is treating the House with contempt that not only should the Minister be absent, but that there should not be a Minister of Cabinet rank, or of near-Cabinet rank, on the Front Bench and that, the Government benches have been practically boycotted apart from the four Government Members in the House.
I can quite understand that Government supporters are more busily occupied in deciding who should succeed the Prime Minister, whether the First Secretary, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or somebody else, but it seems to me extraordinary that on a matter of this kind, affecting teachers' salaries and concerning the whole of the teaching profession and everybody interested in education during the last few months, the Government benches should be almost completely deserted and that it should be left to the Parliamentary Secretary to attempt to reply to what is a matter not only of great educational importance but of great constitutional importance.
It emerged while we were discussing a new Clause moved by a Government supporter, who has now left the Chamber, that the Government are in two minds whether or not to continue in operation Section 89 of the Education Act. It is recognised that if this Section is repealed the whole of the Burnham Committee machinery will be dismantled and nothing will be put in its place. We do not yet know whether that will be the Government's decision or whether they will amend the Section. In the

meantime, we know that, at any rate, until 1965 the whole of the Burnham Committee machinery as it has existed for many years will be scrapped.
The Burnham Committee has worked with great success for many years. I can testify to that effect, because some years ago I was a member of the Committee. In future it is suggested that the Burnham Committee, in practice, should cease to function and in its place the Minister should make orders dealing with teachers' salaries throughout the country. The negotiating machinery will lapse, and the powers of the local authorities will cease, and the Bill gives power to the Minister by his own order to say what teachers' salaries throughout the country should be. The only check on that is the approval of Parliament. Therefore, the issue for us on the Amendment is how that approval of Parliament shall be exercised.
The Minister is suggesting that the only parliamentary check should be the procedure of a Prayer, the negative Resolution procedure, as it is generally known, which places upon the Opposition the responsibility of putting down a Prayer which does not come up for debate until ten o'clock at night and then, under Standing Orders, can be discussed only until 11.30, and the Prayer may not even come up for debate at ten o'clock. Experience in recent years has shown that some prayers do not start until 10.30 or later, depending on how many Divisions there are at ten o'clock.
But, whatever time the Prayer begins, under the Standing Orders the debate has to end at 11.30, subject to this, that the Chair has the right, if Mr. Speaker thinks the subject has not been adequately discussed, to adjourn the debate to a further date when it comes on for perhaps another half hour or so. But the opportunities for effectively controlling delegated legislation by the machinery of the negative Resolution procedure are very restricted and, in practice, do not give the Opposition very much opportunity of debate or of curtailing the Government's proposals.
On the other hand, it has been recognised by successive Governments and various Ministers that on all matters of constitutional importance, notably on any matter affecting the imposition of taxes or payments of various kinds, it


has become traditional that the Government should obtain approval by way of affirmative Resolution. Under this procedure, the Government have to take the initiative and to explain and justify the Order for which, approval is sought. There is no time limit within which the House has to discuss the Order, because Orders which are subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure and confirmation of the House are exempted business and, therefore, can be debated without the imposition of a time limit.
There is, therefore, a very considerable difference in degree in the form and nature of Parliamentary control over Ministers according to whether the negative Resolution procedure or the affirmative Resolution procedure is adopted. It is important that that should be emphasised because some relatively new Ministers do not always appreciate the great distinction which exists between the negative Resolution procedure and the affirmative Resolution procedure.
I agree with what my hon. Friends have said. The matter we are discussing seems, both in substance and procedurally, to be essentially the kind of matter which the Minister should be required to explain and justify to Parliament by taking the initiative and laying an affirmative Resolution and finding Government time to justify it before it obtains Parliamentary approval. [Interruption.] There is no need for the Parliamentary Secretary to get impatient. The fact that the Minister of Education has thought it appropriate to try to get the Bill through by suggesting the negative Resolution procedure for these measures is to me a further indication of his contempt for Parliament. We hear a good deal these days about Parliament falling into disrepute and losing its authority. One of the reasons for this trend in recent years has been the conduct of the Minister of Education and his colleagues, and the Government are to blame.
It is hypocrisy for the Minister of Education, who is absent while a matter of the greatest importance affecting his Department is being considered, to give evidence, which has been quoted, a few years ago saying how important it was that Parliament should have control of this kind and then to do two things which

show his utter disregard and contempt of Parliament First, he has proposed the negative Resolution procedure where the affirmative procedure is not only appropriate, but essential. Secondly, the Minister has absented himself from discussion of this matter on Report in the House of Commons tonight. This is conduct which is disgraceful and thoroughly discreditable. I can only hope that the one way in which the Minister of Education and the Government can redeem themselves from what seems to me to be such discreditable conduct is by indicating that they are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Donald Wade: Before we hear the reply to this discussion, I should like to add such weight as I can to the case which has been made for the Amendment. I have spoken on other occasions about delegated legislation and I do not propose to deploy all the arguments again. There are, however, three points to be mentioned.
First, a principle is involved. It is important that Parliament should have a watchful eye on any form of delegated legislation; and where there are arguments for the affirmative or the negative Resolution procedure it is essential that we should come down on the side of the former wherever possible. The present instance seems to me to be such a case. Secondly, there is the time factor. I shall be interested to hear what we are told from the Government Front Bench, but it would seem to me that the time factor is not an important issue here. Thirdly, the confidence of the teachers has been badly shaken in the last two years.
I am not suggesting that the whole teaching profession has been studying carefully the advantages and disadvantages of affirmative and negative Resolutions. We know, however, that there is importance in the affirmative Resolution procedure and anything that we can do to show that Parliament is endeavouring to exercise control over the Executive in this matter is all to the good. For these three adequate reasons, I support the Amendment.

Mr. Chataway: A number of reasons have been advanced by hon. Members for changing from the negative Resolution procedure, as we propose, to the


affirmative procedure. The hon. Member for Islington, East(Mr. Fletcher) said some harsh words. He took it, he said, as a sign of contempt for the House of Commons that it should be proposed to use the negative procedure in this instance. I admit readily that this is a proper matter for discussion and for argument, but I assert that there are no cut and dried rules by which one can decide whether a matter should be subject to the affirmative or to the negative Resolution procedure.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) has quoted from some speeches made ten years ago by my right hon. Friend the Minister, attesting to his interest in this matter at that time. I assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend remains today as interested to see that the House of Commons has a proper opportunity to consider and control delegated legislation as he did then. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland will, I hope, agree that that control may be by either of these two procedures and, equally, that the object of the exercise would be defeated if every order were to be subject to the affirmative procedure. It seemed at one point as if that were almost the argument of the hon. Member for Islington, East. Clearly, there is a decision to be made. Also, there are no hard and fast rules to be observed.
9.15 p.m.
I will give the House the considerations which were in the mind of my right hon. Friend when he decided to suggest the negative Resolution procedure in this instance. It has been argued that this is a matter of such importance that it should be subject to affirmative Resolution procedure. Clearly, the Bill is important, and hon. Members will not argue about that. The first Orders made under it will have a far-reaching effect, but their broad content has been discussed in principle during the proceedings on the Bill. Thereafter, the Orders issued will very often be very trivial ones—for example, minor alterations in allowances or the addition of a degree or diploma as a qualification for an allowance. That is the kind of thing which will be included in subsequent Orders, and it would be disproportionate to the importance of the order for Parliamentary time necessarily to be taken up in discussion of it.
It has been suggested that the negative Resolution procedure has disadvantages for the Opposition, and I accept that the affirmative Resolution procedure gives the Opposition more opportunities in a number of ways. First, a number of hon. Members may not notice an order on the Order Paper, and it may, therefore, not be prayed against, though I do not think it would be argued that that would be likely to be the case with the first Orders published under the Bill.
Secondly, it has been argued that the Opposition's attitude may be misrepresented if we are following the negative Resolution procedure. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said that if one is praying against an Order it may be felt outside the House that one is, therefore, opposed to the content of the Order. I am not sure that I go with the hon. Gentleman entirely in this argument, because it would seem to me equally that if one prayed against an order subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure the same deduction might be drawn outside. Also, in neither case, as he admitted, can one amend an order. Even if one accepts his contention, which was repeated by other hon. Members, in this instance the outside world is unlikely to misunderstand the attitude of the Opposition on the main order because that attitude has been made very clear during many hours in the course of the Bill.
More important—I recognise the importance of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Islington, East—there is less time under the negative Resolution procedure. Here it must be a matter of judgment. Perhaps it is rash of me to venture a guess, but I should be somewhat surprised if a great deal of time were required by hon. Members to discuss the first and major set of Orders under the Bill because the general principles have been already discussed to such an extent.
In considering this matter and whether these orders do rate the sort of importance as would qualify for affirmative Resolution, I think that the House might wish to bear in mind that the Orders made under Section 89 are not subject to either negative or affirmative Resolutions. I appreciate that these Orders come to the House after they have been agreed between the three parties to the education service. But they have not


been agreed by the House of Commons, which can, on many occasions, be jealous of its privileges and resent the idea that matters that have been agreed by outside parties are necessarily going to secure its consent.
It seems to me that if it is now their view that the Orders under this Bill should qualify for affirmative Resolution procedure, hon. Members opposite could be expected to show at least some disquiet about Orders under Section 89, which are not even subject to negative procedure.

Dr. King: Orders under Section 89 were the implementation of wage negotiations carried out by machinery honoured by time and success for forty years. The Orders the hon. Member proposes to bring in now are to tear up the negotitaing machinery, and that demands scrutiny by Parliament.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman does not put it in quite the words I would choose, but I agree that there is this kind of difference. All I argue is that the orders under Section 89 can be of great importance. There may have been little or no time for the House to discuss a settlement. In this instance, it seems almost certain that there will only be one major and important set of Orders under this Bill, and these have been discussed in broad principle very fully during its passage.
But, as I indicated in Committee when we discussed this question, the affirmative Resolution procedure in this instance is very likely to cause delay in the coming into operation of the Orders, as time has to be found in Parliament to consider and vote upon them. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) thinks it unlikely that we would have difficulty in finding time at the end of this Session. But he will appreciate that time is getting short, and I suggest that there is considerable risk that towards the end of this Session it might well be that time could not be found for these Orders necessarily to be discussed.
These will be, as I have stressed, the first and most important Orders and are to be retrospective to 1st April. If they are subject to the negative Resolution procedure, they will come into force immediately and, therefore, make it pos-

sible for the teachers to get their increases, including back pay, at the earliest date. But if the affirmative procedure is required it could well be several months before they could be getting that extra money. There is the real possibility of delay.
These are the considerations that have led us to propose that the negative Resolution procedure should be used in this instance. I hope that what I have said may persuade the House that in this instance this is the correct procedure to be followed. I therefore urge the House to reject the Amendment.

Mrs. White: The hon. Gentleman has been carefully trying to play out time until his right hon. Friend turned up from his other engagement. I emphasise our disappointment that the Minister of Education has not been here for nearly three hours. He has been keeping an engagement which was well known to those of us who took part in a similar meeting. We have known for about three months that the Minister of Education was to be engaged tonight at a meeting which, we agree, is important. It is a meeting of the Campaign for Education, 1963, which we support, but this is another example of the utter incompetence of the Government in arranging their business.
This engagement was well known in the Minister's Department. Apparently, the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House did not bother to ask the Minister of Education whether he was free to be at the service of the House of Commons in respect of a matter which affects not only his Department, but all the teachers in the country.
I therefore think that we are fully entitled to complain at the prolonged absence of the right hon. Gentleman when we are dealing with matters which include the question of Section 89 and this question of delegated legislation in which he was most particularly concerned and on which I think we have a right to have his views.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is entitled to do so in relation to the Amendment now being discussed.

Mrs. White: I do not follow, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Confined to this Amendment, I dare say that the hon. Lady can


complain that the Minister of Education is absent, but not on this question from the discussion of other than this Amendment.

Mrs. White: I appreciate the point of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that the House will be able to extend my complaint to the other Amendments for which the right hon. Gentleman was also not present.
The Parliamentary Secretary has endeavoured to make the point that the Opposition were being unreasonable in insisting that we should have the affirmative Resolution procedure for a matter of this moment, because he said that under Section 89 of the 1944 Act there is no debate in the House. But that is a completely different matter. The Orders which the Minister issues under Section 89 are merely the registration of an agreement.
We as an Opposition have protested that the House of Commons is not, in fact, a negotiating body. We are not suitable for negotiations. We fully recognise that, and that is why we make no complaint that when the matter has been properly negotiated by the parties concerned the House of Commons should not discuss it. We do not think that the House of Commons is a suitable place to deal with the details of remuneration of a complicated and large profession such as the teaching profession.
We make no complaint about the absence of opportunity for debating decisions which are registered under Section 89, because that is all that the Minister does, but this is a completely different position. Far from there being any negotiation, this is an imposed solution by the Minister. This is one of our objections to the whole way in which the Minister has handled this matter. Because he is taking these powers unto himself, he puts at the same time the responsibility on Parliament, to which he is directly responsible, for scrutinising the scale of salary which he unilaterally is imposing on the teaching profession and on the local education authorities. It is not our fault, but that of the Minister, that the House is now to be brought into a consideration of detailed scales which the Minister is imposing. The position is, therefore, utterly different from the registration of an agreement freely reached by negotiation under Section 89.
It is because the Minister is acting in this way that we as an Opposition say that it is not only the broad principles that ought to be discussed, as we have been discussing under this Bill, but that we should have a right in these particular circumstances to consider the details. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) remarked—

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Lady seems to be falling into the error into which a number of speakers have fallen in suggesting that there will be no opportunity to discuss this. There will be 1½ hours for each Order in this instance.

9.30 p.m.

Mrs. White: The hon. Member has condemned himself out of his own mouth. We are to discuss detailed scales for hundreds of thousands of our teachers. In Committee and on Report we have discussed the principles, but only in the broadest sense. We have referred only occasionally, by way of illustration, to particular sums of money. We have been most scrupulous in not referring to matters which were not before the Committee and which were not strictly speaking within the cognisance of the House because they were not part of the Bill or any Schedule.
We have not discussed in detail the differentials on which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister lays so much stress. The whole essence of the dispute between the Minister and the Burnham Committee was not merely on a matter of principle but on the detailed way in which the right hon. Gentleman considered that he knew better than the Burnham Committee, and on the detailed arrangements that he was proposing to make for differentials in respect of different groups of teachers in different grades. All of this is what is to be contained in orders placed before the House.
I have quite strong feelings about the whole question of allowances for special responsibility. These are being dealt with under these scales. There is the differential for headmasters and headmistresses of schools, and the question of how these compare with those of heads of departments and other teachers, and so on. There are endless matters which, if we are to bring this question at all before the cognisance of Parliament,


should be discussed. How can we do justice to a matter of this magnitude and complexity in one and a half hours? To suggest that we can is adding insult to injury. It is insulting to the teaching profession and to the House of Commons. It is insulting to the teaching profession to suggest that these complicated scales can be discussed in one and a half hours, and insulting to the House of Commons to suggest that it can carry out this sort of business in that time.
The Parliamentary Secretary made great play with the suggestion that if we had agreed to the affirmative Resolution procedure there might be some danger that this Order could not be approved before the House rose for the Recess and that teachers might be deprived of money to which they are entitled. The hon. Gentleman has been reminded—if he was not already aware of it—that an affirmative Order is exempted business. In a matter of this kind, when the Opposition are anxious that the teachers should obtain the extra money to which they are entitled, the hon. Gentleman can be quite sure that although we want adequate time for discussion of these scales—and although we might complain about the time available—in the circumstances, when we were getting near the Recess, my hon. Friends would not mind sitting late on a matter of this sort—all night, if need be. We would be quite prepared to do that. What we are not prepared to accept without protest is the suggestion that in a matter of this kind we should be discharging our duty by agreeing that we can deal with the matter adequately in a maximum of one and a half hours.
There is another point to consider. All Members of the Opposition at one time or another have been concerned with trying to put down Prayers against one Order or another. We have a certain limited time in which to do this. There is always a queue of people seeking to put down different Prayers on different orders. An hon. Member must try to find a night which is suitable, and even if he does this something quite unexpected can happen—as so often occurs in this place—so that just when he thinks that he has everything laid on

something turns up to prevent his Prayer being debated.
Furthermore, under the negative Resolution procedure an order can become effective before the Recess. As an Opposition, what we are really concerned about is the question whether we can be expected to wait until after the Recess—if we ever come back to this House before another election takes place. Even assuming that we resume in the ordinary way after the Summer Recess, why should we have to delay a consideration of these scales, as the Parliamentary Secretary possibly envisages, until the autumn?—because at least 40 working days must elapse. He is saying that it does not much matter whether the Opposition examine these orders because the Government will see that the teachers get their money. But the Government do not want to have a particular examination of what they are doing. That is another reason why we resent the attitude of the Government. They are taking the House of Commons for granted.
We are grateful that the Minister has now returned to the Chamber and his Parliamentary duties. But the right hon. Gentleman has returned only just in time to hear himself being accused of taking the House of Commons for granted. He is assuming that, having intervened in a matter of this moment and imposed a detailed scale, the whole thing may be brushed aside and examined adequately in the space of an hour and a half.
I do not wish to detain the House, because there are other matters to be dealt with after we have disposed of this Bill. But I hope that we have made abundantly clear that we object very strongly indeed to the procedure adopted by the Government. We think it significant that they should not only dictate the solution but should consider that this very cursory examination of their detailed proposals should be satisfactory.
I hope that anyone who cares for the proper control of public business by the House of Commons, and recognises especially the unique character of the ministerial intervention in this matter, will support the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 149.

Division No. 138.]
AYES
[9.37 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Allason, James
Gresham Cooke, R,
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)


Atkins, Humphrey
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Partridge, E.


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pearson, Frank (Ciltheroe)


Barlow, Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Percival, Ian


Barter, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hastings, Stephen
Pitman, Sir James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hay, John
Pitt, Dame Edith


Bell, Ronald
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pott, Percivall


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hendry, Forbes
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Hill, J. E, B. (S. Norfolk)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bidgood, John C.
Hocking, Philip N.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Biggs-Davison, John
Hollingworth, John
Pym, Francis


Bingham, R. M.
Hornby, R. P,
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P,
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Black, Sir Cyril
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rees, Hugh


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roots, William


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
James, David
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bryan, Paul
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buck, Antony
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Sharples, Richard


Bullard, Denys
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Shaw, M.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Kerans, Cdr. J. S,
Shepherd, William


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kershaw, Anthony
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Chataway, Christopher
Kirk, Peter
Speir, Rupert


Chichester-Clark, R.
Leather, Sir Edwin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Leavey, J. A.
Stodart, J. A.


Cleaver, Leonard
Lilley, F. J. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cooke, Robert
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Storey, Sir Samuel


Corfield, F. V.
Loveys, Walter H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Courtney, Cdr, Anthony
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Summers, Sir Spencer


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Curran, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Teeling, Sir William


Dance, James
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Temple, John M.


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Doughty, Charles
Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


du Cann, Edward
Maddan, Martin
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Duncan, Sir James
Maginnis, John E.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maitland, Sir John
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Elliott,R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Marshall, Douglas
Turner, Colin


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fell, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J,
Vane, W. M. F.


Finlay, Graeme
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S, L. C.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Stratton
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miscampbell, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Forrest, George
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Foster, John
Morrison, John
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gardner, Edward
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


George, Sir John (Pollok)
Neave, Airey
Wise, A. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Worsley, Marcus


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey



Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhew, Victor
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Mr. Peel and Mr. McLaren.


Gower, Raymond
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)



NOES


Abse, Leo
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Ainsley, William
Brockway, A. Fenner
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Carmichael, Neil
Deer, George


Bence, Cyril
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Dempsey, James


Blackburn, F.
Collick, Percy
Diamond, John


Boardman, H.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Cronin, John
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leica,S.W.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Boyden, James
Dalyell, Tam
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)




Evans, Albert
King, Dr. Horace
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Ledger, Ron
Ross, William


Finch, Harold
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, Edward


Fitch, Alan
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fletcher, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Forman, J. C,
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lubbock, Eric
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
McBride, N.
Small, William


Ginsburg, David
MacColl, James
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Gourlay, Harry
McInnes, James
Sorensen, R. W.


Grey, Charles
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. Jamas (Llanelly)
McLeavy, Frank
Steele, Thomas


Hate, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mallaileu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Manuel, Archie
Stonehouse, John


Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles
Stones, William


Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce
Swain, Thomas


Hayman, F. H.
Milne, Edward
Symonds, J. B.


Healey, Denis
Mitchison, G. R.
Taverne, D.


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Moody, A, S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Morris, John
Thomson, G. M. (Dunee, E.)


Hilton, A. V.
Neal, Harold
Thornton, Ernest


Holman, Percy
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wade, Donald


Hooson, H. E.
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Malley, B. K.
Warbey, William


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Padley, W. E.
Weitzman, David


Hunter, A. E.
Paget, R. T.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hynd, H, (Accrington)
Parker, John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Paton, John
Whitlock, William


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilkins, W. A.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Peart, Frederick
Willey, Frederick


Janner, Sir Barnett
Pentland, Norman
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Prentice, R. E.
Willis E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Jeger, George
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Probert, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Redhead, E. C.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rhodes, H.
Zilliacus, K.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kenyon, Clifford
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Charles A. Howell and Mr. Lawson.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In moving this Motion I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes. The brisk and businesslike proceedings in Committee upstairs and the somewhat more prolonged consideration on the Floor of the House have resulted in one or two important Amendments to the Bill which have served to clarify the Bill's implications, and, I hope, its very limited purpose.
The Amendment to which I particularly draw the attention of the House concerns a point to which my right hon. Friend referred on Second Reading. He pointed out then that the Bill as drafted, the power to make Orders, and the Orders then in force, would lapse on 31st March, 1965. This meant that if that date were to be reached without a new salary settlement having been worked out, there would be no provision to govern teachers' salaries. The Bill was drafted in this way because my right hon. Friend wished it to be seen that the power that he was seeking was as limited and as temporary as possible.

My right hon. Friend made it clear that to avoid the risk of any gap in the orderly regulation of teachers' salaries he would, if the House so wished, be willing to table the necessary Amendment. He did so in response to Amendments during the Committee stage tabled both by Members of the Opposition and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee).
The present position is, therefore, that although the power to make new orders will expire on 31st March, 1965, the orders then existing to govern teachers' salaries will continue in force unless and until they are revoked. One hopes, of course, that new arrangements for the negotiation of teachers' salaries will have been agreed before that. The amended subsection (6) represents a precautionary measure, and in all the circumstances it seems a reasonable precaution.
This is a limited Bill. It is introduced solely to resolve a deadlock. The Minister of Education has a duty under Section 89 of the 1944 Act which cannot responsibly be evaded. He is required to approve or reject the recommendations of the Burnham Committee. He has a decision


to make as Minister of Education for England and Wales on the basis of the evidence and the advice which he as Minister and he alone is in a position to receive. It is possible for a Minister of Education to take the easy way out and to accept a set of Burnham proposals that he is convinced are wrong. I do not believe that at a time when education is more than ever before a matter of national concern the service could afford a Minister who chose to take an easy option in that way.
My right hon. Friend, for the reasons first advanced in his letter to the Committee, did not feel able to accept the Burnham proposals. We have argued that the letter was conciliatory and did not seek to dictate an alternative settlement. The Burnham Committee was not prepared to move to meet my right hon. Friend, and in those circumstances if he were to face up to his responsibilities the only way in which the teachers could receive an increase was by means of this Bill. The deadlock did not arise over the size of the award, but over the distribution of the sums available.
The Bill is not an attempt generally to revise the pay structure of the teaching profession. That is a matter for negotiation. Nor does it seek to construct a new negotiating machinery. That, equally, is for discussion between the partners to the education service. It simply enables teachers to receive increases as from 1st April on a set of salary scales which take account of the principle to which my right hon. Friend has rightly attached such importance.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Yesterday, the Prime Minister asked for a vote of confidence, the Government's majority dropped by 27, and we were told that the whole future of the Government was imperilled. Tonight, the Minister of Education is asking for a vote of confidence and the figures show that 25 more Tory Members have abstained than yesterday—and the majority is down to 42. The majority recorded was 42. Is it the intention, in the presence of the Leader of the House, to force the Bill through on a diminished majority of that kind?

Mr. Chataway: I do not know who told the hon. Member that a reduction of 25 in the size of the majority creates

a threatening situation. It was not me. He will notice that as the evening has worn on our majorities have been increasing, and we hope that that will continue.
This is a limited Measure, but one which is necessary if teachers are to receive the increases to which all of us agreed they are entitled. It is on these grounds that I have moved the Third Reading.

9.53 p.m.

Mrs. White: I am sorry that the House has had to spend time on this Bill. In the view of most of us, it is an unnecessary and obnoxious Measure. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to a deadlock which had to be resolved, but the deadlock was created by the Minister, and the legislation on which we have had to spend so many hours is a direct result of the simple proposition that the Minister thinks that he knows best.
It is not even a matter of saving money. When Lord Eccles intervened in the question of teachers' salaries, at least he had the excuse that he was under pressure from the Treasury, that in that lamentable period cuts were being made all round, even in most desirable expenditure, and that he had given way. But at least he was saving millions of pounds. The present Minister of Education has no such excuse. He is not saving a penny. All that he has done is to reorganise the arrangements which had been made by the Burnham Committee simply because he felt that he knew better than either the local education authorities or the organisations of the teachers which together, after many weeks of careful consideration and negotiation, had reached an agreement which was supported by all of them. The Minister found it necessary to intervene in a way which does not command the acquiescence of this side of the House.
As the Parliamentary Secretary reminded us, there have been only two changes of any significance in the Bill. One was a clarification of drafting—and it is the Minister's departmental responsibility to make sure that the Bill does what he intends it to do. The other was the very small but welcome—as far as it goes—concession of a £10 per annum increase in allowances for teachers of handicapped children. It is welcome as far as it goes, but it amounts to only about 5s. a week.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: It is 4s. a week.

Mrs. White: I thank my hon. Friend. It is 4s. a week for those doing probably the most onerous job of all in the teaching profession.
All the arguments that we have advanced in the course of our deliberations on the Bill have fallen on rather stony ground. I will not delay the House, because I know that there is other business which has still to be discussed and other matters which are of great importance in the state of employment of the country. I will simply put firmly on record that we consider that this Bill is undesirable, that it is unnecessary, and that we intend to oppose it to the end.

9.56 p.m.

Dr. King: This debate is probably the last one which will occur under the Permanent Secretary ship of a great lady who has rendered great service to education. I as a back bencher want to pay humble tribute to the Permanent Secretary who is retiring in five weeks' time and wish her happiness in her retirement.
Third Reading debates are usually pleasant affairs. I am sorry that this one cannot be. This is a bad Bill. It is an unnecessary Bill. It is a Bill of a stubborn and doctrinaire Minister who has defended all his bad details stubbornly throughout the Committee and Report stages. We are told by the Parliamentary Secretary that it is to resolve a deadlock. The deadlock need never have happened. It was created by the Minister, and the Bill is the result of his own failure to accept the wage negotiating machinery that previous Ministers had accepted for forty years. Its declared object is to improve the Burnham recommendations in order—I quote the Minister—that
more should be done for those with longer service, higher qualifications, or greater responsibility.
For longer service the Minister has chosen one group, those between the ages of 27 and 36. Teachers aged 37 and over get less increases from the Minister than those in the 27 to 36 group compared with the Burnham proposals. No ordinary teacher at the maximum will get more from the Minister than he was to get under the Burnham proposals. Some at the maximum, those with an extra year's training, will get less from

the Minister than they would have done from Burnham. The additions for degrees are unaltered as compared with Burnham. So much, then, for the rewarding of longer service and so much for the rewarding of extra qualifications.
Turning to special responsibility, many of those who receive from the Minister with one hand a little extra for special responsibility lose the £30 a year safeguard which the Burnham Committee introduced, so that those who get less than an extra £30 from the Minister for their special responsibility as compared with Burnham will be worse off if they suffer under the Minister's abolition of the protective £30.
It is no wonder that the Association of Assistant Masters, representing the grammar schools, charges the Minister about this Bill with "breach of faith" and "failure to pass the test of his own declared intentions".
The National Union of Teachers has from the start bitterly attacked the Minister and bitterly protested in the name of professional unity and professional status against a Bill which gives the Minister power to ignore Section 89 of the 1944 Act; indeed, so to ignore it that one of his hon. Friends even proposed that we wipe it off the Statute Book this evening; power to ignore wage settlements arrived at by negotiation; power to impose wage settlements on his own; power to rob young teachers in order to benefit an already better paid group, selected on a basis which makes sense to the Minister and to the pundits of his Ministry, but which appear nonsense to the expert negotiators on both sides of the Burnham Committee.
I hope that when we get into power—and it is not now a question of "whether" but "when"—we shall take this Bill, tear it up and get back to the principles—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Dr. King: I was saying that I hope that when we return to power we shall


get back to the principles of freely negotiated wages between employer and employee. In the meantime, I urge the Minister to run away from the attitude he has adopted throughout the Bill and get down to setting up a new salary negotiating body. I hope that he will try to end some of the ill-will he has gratuitously created. The harm he has done to teachers is, I believe, less important than the harm he has done to teaching by the Bill.
It is not a good thing for our children that so much bad blood should exist, as it now does, between the Minister and the teaching profession. It is not a good thing for children that staff rooms should ring not with the talk of education and children, school problems, new methods of teaching, books and so on, but that there should exist a feeling of frustration and humiliation and bitter talk about the Bill. The Minister rightly wants the co-operation of the teaching profession in discussing curricula. He wants conferences on teaching methods and so on, and we all want to examine the fundamental purposes of education. But he has created barriers by the Bill between himself and the very people who, in the long run, must find all the answers to the searching questions which are confronting British society and education today.
I do not understand why the Minister has taken this action, although behind it, of course, is the Tory desire to impose a wage policy on teachers, civil servants, local government workers and all whom they control—while leaving luxury to run riot in land and property rackets and a society which offers Christine Keeler more for a week than an infant teacher will earn in a year.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: Nearly a lifetime.

Dr. King: Behind the Bill is the growing power of Whitehall; a whittling away of local authority power at a time when we should be getting together, central and local government, to see how we can find new instruments to meet the changing pattern of British life, at the same time preserving local initiative and local participation in democratic government. The best comments on the Bill are to be found in a Motion of 27th January, 1937, when one of my hon. Friends, then a Liberal, moved:

That the power of the Executive has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.
This Parliamentary exercise of opposition to a Ministerial diktat has been, to Ministerial circles, just so much time wasted—whereas we believe it to have been a battle worth righting, even though we were bound to lose it because of the Government's majority. I want to protest against the growing power of the central authority against the local authority and of the Executive against Parliament generally, as is shown by the Bill.
This comment is to be found in a speech—a piece of doggerel dug up by Lord Morrison when he led this House in such a distinguished way—made in 1943:
The Ministerial Octopus—
Grows new limbs every day;
Three more are quickly sprouted—
For each one chopped away.
—[Official Report, 26th May, 1943; Vol. 389, c. 1653.]
This has certainly happened tonight; the growth of a limb by the way in which this Minister has handled the Burnham Committee.
It is with both sorrow and anger that I oppose this Bill; in sorrow, because it has been introduced by a Minister who has so much to give to education that it is lamentable to see him throwing away such gifts in the promotion of such a shabby piece of dictatorship.

Mr. Boyden: This is not a Bill about differentials or a career structure in the teaching profession, but about power. The Bill enables the Minister to dictate salary scales to the teachers and to their employers, the local education authorities. This power is taken at a time when the maximum co-operation is required from the local education committees and the teachers. Only with that co-operation can the maximum number of training college students be brought forward, and only with that co-operation can the attack on the reduction in the size of classes go forward.
If this Bill were shown to any of my constitutents in a working men's club they would not understand what it was all about. Indeed, the experts would agree with that conclusion, because one


sentence in the pamphlet, The Burnham Story, reads:
Unfortunately, they"—
the Government—
have now wrecked the working machine without having anything to put in its place, and without having done the fundamental thinking necessary to find an improvement.
This Bill, in their sense, is exactly in the same sense as those in a working men's club would find it.
The Bill makes nonsense in the educational context. It is disastrous, and one of the biggest blows to education that has been struck. We, on our side, think it all the more pity that the right hon. Gentleman has seized power and in that way has become the enemy of educational advance. We have opposed this Bill now for about seven days. We have wrung one concession from the Minister, which is that there should be £10 extra per year for teachers of handicapped children. That is a fitting epitaph on this Bill—a concession of £10 a year from the Government. I am sure that the Minister will later regret this Bill.

10.8 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: I know that there is other business to follow this, so I will reply to the debate as briefly as possible. Particularly in view of what the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said, I should like, first, to apologise for being absent from the House for three hours. I am not, I think, particularly sensitive in debates to criticisms of a personal kind, but I must say that I was sorry to hear her say that I took the House of Commons for granted. Whatever my faults may be. I hope that lack of respect for the House is not normally one of them.
As the hon. Lady knows, the sole reason for my absence was that I was asked to take part with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary at a meeting of the Campaign for Education, 1963. Had I left 20 minutes sooner, and so missed part of the question time, I think that I would have received harsher criticism at Hamilton House than in this Chamber—

Mrs. White: The right hon. Gentleman will be able to read in HANSARD the whole of the comments on his absence.

We were not blaming him so much personally as the whole arrangement of Government business, because he was keeping an engagement which all of us concerned with these matters knew two or three months ago was to take place. Our complaint was that the Government were so incompetent with their business that they chose this day, when the right hon. Gentleman should have been here, when, had there been any liaison at all, it should have been clear that he could not be in two places at once.

Sir E. Boyle: I will certainly read what the hon. Lady said when I come to HANSARD tomorrow.
In reply to her speech this evening, I would say that the need for the Bill has arisen directly out of the principles which I set out in my letter to the Chairman of the Burnham Committee on 20th February. I confess that on the following day in the House I had the impression that those principles commanded a good deal of support—and not only on the Government benches—and I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Lady say that she would not have minded so much had the object of my intervention been to save money but that I was intervening purely on educational grounds.
I must point out that Section 89 of the 1944 Act shows that Parliament clearly intended the Minister to play a part in the negotiating machinery, and this implies the propriety of using it.
I would remind the House of a fair point made in the Guardian some weeks ago when it said that a number of those who are keen that the Minister should not be a dictator are in great danger of requiring him to be a nonenity. I would emphasise that my desire is to be neither the one nor the other. This ad hoc legislation tonight is necessary because, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said, there was a deadlock which is an inherent possibility in the present system, but there were no arrangements for resolving it. I could have left the deadlock unresolved or set about straight away revising the machinery in the hope that new machinery would have been able to renegotiate a salary settlement but, as I explained on Second Reading, in neither


case could teachers have been guaranteed a pay increase from April, 1963.
My sole purpose in asking the House to pass this ad hoc legislation is to ensure that teachers are paid an additional sum which over the next two years will be £50 million in all. Hon. Members have said that only one miserable concession has been wrung out of the Government, but on two quite important points referred to me, one by the Burn-ham Technical Committee and the other by the Farm Institutes Committee, as my hon. Friend explained tonight, I have decided that those concessions should be granted.
This legislation in no way prejudices the outcome of discussions about future negotiating machinery and I have arranged to see the representatives of all the associations concerned both on the teachers' side and the employers' side for the first round of talks before the House rises for the Summer Recess. Therefore, I am not ignoring the next stage. Meanwhile, this ad hoc legislation is not intended to be dictation. I believe it to be the only right and possible solution to the present deadlock.
I regret the necessity for the Bill but I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken part in the debate, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), and many others besides them on the Front Bench opposite. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for his tribute to Dame Mary Smieton. The sole reason for the Bill, I repeat, is that I think it is the only solution to the deadlock in which we find ourselves at present.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Willey: In view of the fact that I commented on the Minister's absence I must say at once that I accept the right hon. Gentleman's apology. I realise, as I pointed out, that he was in a difficult dilemma. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has said, the reflection was on the Leader of the House and the Chief Patronage Secretary, bur, having heard lately of what goes on behind closed doors in Government quarters, we are not surprised. I am sure that this was not a situation which the right hon. Gentleman would

willingly have sought. I give him credit that he has left us in no doubt about his personal attitude towards us and that he has accepted full responsibility for the action he is taking.
The action which the right hon. Gentleman is taking is making him another of the lonely men. We look at the Government Front Bench and we recognise its occupants as lonely men, shunned, scorned and scoffed at. The right hon. Gentleman associates with his colleagues. It is clear that in education he now is a very lonely man. I again recognise his genuine interest in education. He must be a particularly lonely man in that he has cut himself off from other people who work diligently in the interest of education.
It has also been clear in our discussions that the right hon. Gentleman has not done this through any flair for originality. This really is a blatant case of the men in Whitehall knowing best. It is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman, with his talents, has become no more than a spokesman for men in the Executive who have sought to extend their scope of power and influence further than it should go.

Sir E. Boyle: I apologise for interrupting, because I know that the House wants to get on with the business, but I must correct the hon. Gentleman's statement. This is a Government Bill. I took this decision as the responsible Minister with the support of my colleagues in the Government, and it simply is neither proper nor true to suggest that this Bill has been foisted on me by the Executive or my advisers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his statement.

Mr. Willey: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. He is more foolish than I gave him credit for, and more stubborn and obstinate than I believed him to be. This makes him more dangerous to education.
Let the right hon. Gentleman reflect on what he has done. He has caused the gravest offence to and the deepest distrust among those public servants who have acted honourably, conscientiously and well on the Burnham Committee over the past years. He has caused the deepest distrust to be felt about the intentions of the Government and their attitude


towards the whole of our wage and salary negotiating machinery. He has caused the teaching profession as a whole to distrust his regard for it. It believes that the right hon. Gentleman has no proper appreciation of its urgent and eager desire legitimately and properly to establish its professional status. He has seriously damaged the partnership upon which British education depends.
As I have emphasised time after time, the responsibility for education does not lie solely in the Minister's Department. It depends on those engaged in the teaching profession and in local government and also on those in his Department. I regret the damage that he has done. That damage is serious, but it goes no further than that, because I am sure that the

right hon. Gentleman will not remain in office much longer. The Government are falling and disintegrating. It is a pity, recognising the right hon. Gentleman's real interest in education, that he has allowed himself to be put in a position where he appears to be retarding the advance being made by those interested in education and those conscious of the difficulties facing education today and is making their job so much more difficult.

For this reason we must continue our root and branch opposition to this Bill by opposing the Third Reading.

Question put. That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 178. Noes 139.

Division No. 139.]
AYES
[10.17 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Goodhew, Victor
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Allason, James
Cower, Raymond
Morrison, John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Atkins, Humphrey
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Neave, Airey


Barter, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Batsford, Brian
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Hay, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bingham, R. M.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Partridge, E,


Bishop, F. P.
Hendry Forbes
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Percival, Ian


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hocking, Philip N.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hollingworth, John
Pitman, Sir James


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, R. P.
Pitt, Dame Edith


Buck, Antony
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dam P.
Pott, Percivall


Bullard, Denye
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hughes-Young, Michael
Prior, J. M. L,


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Channon, H. P. G.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chataway, Christopher
James, David
Pym, Francis


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rees, Hugh


Cleaver, Leonard
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Corfield, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Leavey, J. A.
Roots, William


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Critchley, Juilan
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Russell, Ronald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loveys, Walter H.
St. Clair, M.


Dance, James
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Scott-Hopkins, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sharples, Richard


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shaw, M.


Doughty, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Shepherd, William


du Cann, Edward
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Elliott,R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Speir, Rupert


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McMaster, Stanley R.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Stodart, J. A.


Farr, John
Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Finlay, Graeme
Maddan, Martin
Storey, Sir Samuel


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Foster, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Gardner, Edward
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


George, Sir John (Pollok)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Teeling, Sir William


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton
Temple, John M.


Glyn, Or. Alan (Clapham)
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)




Thompson Sir Richard(Croydon, S.)
Vane W. M. F.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Turner, Colin
Walker, Peter
Wise, A. R.


Turton, Rt, Hon. R. H.
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Ward, Dame Irene
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. McLaren and Mr. Ian Fraser.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Ainsley, William
Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hooson, H. E,
Probert, Arthur


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Redhead, E. C.


Beaney, Alan
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Rhodes, H.


Bence, Cyril
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blyton, William
Hunter, A. E.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Boardman, H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Ross, William


Boyden, James
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Short, Edward


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Janner, Sir Barnett
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brawn, Thomas (Ince)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Small, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cilffe, Michael
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Steele, Thomas


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
King, Dr. Horace
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dalyell, Tam
Lawson, George
Stonehouse, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Stones, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Symonds, J. B.


Dempsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Taverne, D.


Diamond, John
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, N.
Thompson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacColl, James
Thornton, Ernest


Edelman, Maurice
McInnes, James
Wade, Donald


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Albert
Manuel, Archie
Watkins, Tudor


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Weitzman, David


Finch, Harold
Mendelson, J. J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fitch, Alan
Millan, Bruce
White, Mrs. Elrene


Forman, J. C.
Milne, Edward
Whitlock, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wigg, George


George, Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Morris, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Ginsburg, David
Neal, Harold
Willey, Frederick


Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
O'Malley, B. K.
Woof, Robert


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Padley, W. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Hannan, William
Paget, R. T.



Harper, Joseph
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Peart, Frederick
Mr. Ifor Davies


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LOCAL EMPLOYMENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(GRANTS FOR MACHINERY AND PLANT.)

10.27 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end to insert:
(6) In subsection (1) of this section "persons" described therein shall include persons carrying on a statutory undertaking.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): It may be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the next Amendment, that in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), in Clause 2, page 2, line 7, at the beginning to insert:
(1) In section 3(1) of the principal Act (building grants) "persons" described therein shall include persons carrying on a statutory undertaking.

Mr. Prentice: Our purpose in moving the Amendment, and also putting down the next Amendment, is to have some discussion about the treatment of public enterprises under the Bill and the Local Employment Act, 1960. This is a point which was raised on Second Reading and also discussed during the Committee stage.
I think it fair to summarise the Government's arguments as follows. They say that the law already provides, both in the 1960 Act and in the Bill, that public enterprise can be treated in the same way as a privately-owned enterprise from the point of view of this legislation. But the President of the Board of Trade said on Second Reading:
No grants will be made available to them, because all their financial needs are met by separate legislation and it would be a matter of paying part out of one pocket and part out of another. There would be no advantage to the concern in being paid partly through the medium of the Bill."—[Official Report, 1st May, 1963; Vol. 676, c. 1264.]
The Parliamentary Secretary said more or less the same thing when we discussed the matter in Committee.
It seems to us that this avoids a most important point. When the publicly-owned industries obtain their finance, under existing legislation they borrow

money which they have to repay normally at the market rates of interest. They are also under a statutory obligation to make ends meet taking one year with another. They get no subsidy in the form of the grants that are provided for in the Bill or the aid provided for in the 1960 Act. In other words, there is a discrimination here in practice between the treatment of privately-owned enterprise setting up business in development districts and publicly-owned enterprises doing the same thing.
10.30 p.m.
This seems to us to be wrong for two reasons. First of all, it may deny a publicly-owned enterprise a chance of supplying extra jobs in a development district. If it is merely to make an ordinary commercial choice between setting up in a development district and elsewhere, without any financial encouragement from the Government in making that choice, then, of course, various factors have to be taken into account which may lead to the setting up of the business outside a development district.
For example, if the Central Electricity Generating Board is proposing to site a new power station it will take into account all the various factors affecting that power station. If it were to get, as provided under the Bill, a 10 per cent. grant towards its machinery and plant and a 25 per cent. grant towards the building, that would, of course, be a factor in the equation and might lead it to establish the power station in a development district, providing jobs in building the power station, providing jobs afterwards in starting the power station, and providing an enterprise which would stimulate indirectly other forms of enterprise in that district. Therefore, the point we are discussing now is relevant to the provision of more jobs in development districts.
The other reason why I would stress that it is quite unfair to discriminate in this way is that there are several important aspects of competition here. There is competition between, for instance, oil and coal. An oil company under this Clause and Clause 2 could get grants for the establishment of an oil refinery. B.P. recently established


a refinery in Belfast under the Northern Ireland legislation and was helped, and the same might apply in a development district in this country, but if the N.C.B. were to modernise a coal mine or to establish an ancillary plant at a coal mine, that would not, by the practice of the Government as described hitherto, be given any kind of grant at all. That would be discrimination by the State in favour of oil against coal. Apart from the principle of discrimination, that might affect employment in the coal industry, which employs more people in relation to output than the oil industry, and that is an important consideration when we are considering development districts.
Therefore, while admitting that the words we propose in the Amendments would not alter the legal position, we move the Amendment to challenge the Government and their practice hitherto, and we invite—and challenge—them to say they will change that practice in future, because it seems to us, both as a matter of general principle and as a matter of providing jobs, wrong that privately-owned industry can qualify and publicly-owned industries cannot for the grants provided for.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): As the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) recognises, and, indeed, said very fairly, this Amendment adds nothing to the Bill. Therefore, it can be said to be unnecessary. As I explained in Committee, the phrase "persons" without any qualification includes persons carrying on a statutory undertaking, and so, as I think the hon. Member recognises, there is no question but that nationalised undertakings are legally eligible for grants under the principal Act.
As I explained in Standing Committee, and as the hon. Member has reminded us, it has been hitherto the practice to exclude the nationalised industries by administrative action from B.O.T.A.C. assistance. The reasons for this I gave in Standing Committee and my right hon. Friend gave on Second Reading, but this Bill, by introducing the new standard grants, makes the value of grant finance rather then loan finance more important than hitherto.

No doubt with this in mind, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and some of his hon. Friends pressed me to includenationalised industries within the benefits of the new provisions, and the hon. Member for East Ham, North has further developed that case tonight.
Since the Committee stage, we have had another look at this exclusion. Hon. Members will appreciate that the purpose of the standard grants is to encourage people to establish in development districts enterprises they would otherwise establish elsewhere or not establish at all. The nationalised industries have a general duty to meet public demand for transport, fuel, power, and so forth, and their expansion is based, in agreement with the Government, on estimates of the trend of demand for the particular service or product in question.
Therefore, it will be seen that, in general, grants of this particular character are not needed to increase the total of their investment. The only purpose of such grants would be—and I think this is important—to influence them in the location of their new developments. This is likely to happen in fewer cases than appears at first sight. Coal must be dug where it lies; power transmitted to places where people want to consume it. Therefore, over most of their activities, I think siting is not in practice so much a matter of discretion but is determined by the pattern of location and demand.
We can well imagine exceptions to this. The most obvious one would be the establishment of a research organisation or administrative office, and hon. Members opposite have mentioned one or two other examples. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) quoted the case of a coal ancillary installation, such as tar distillation. One recognises that there would be clear cases where the availability of these grants might make all the difference in determining whether an establishment was located within or without a development district. There may well be occasions where there is a choice in the location of a power station as well.
Where there is a genuine choice of location, the Government would consider


making grants to nationalised industries, but it must be a genuine choice of alternative sites. We would judge each case on its merits, as we do with private industry. We do not think that the making of grants to nationalised industries would normally be necessary because the location of the vast majority of their establishments which provide significant employment is determined by patterns of location and demand and virtually little choice is left to the management.
There is little point in giving grants to provide services which the nationalised industries are already obliged by Statute to provide, and which they would in any case provide. However, we recognise that occasions will arise where genuine choice of location presents itself, and in these circumstances we agree that it would be sensible to let the nationalised industries have the benefit of the grant aid if the development goes to a development district.

Mr. James Dempsey: I was not on the Standing Committee. What does the hon. Member mean by "genuine choice"? Does it mean a genuine choice of helping to solve an unemployment problem or of benefits which might arise as a result of siting of development?

Mr. Price: Let us take a simple example. A coal field may lie partly in a development district. The National Coal Board may decide to put up a tar distillation plant and have to make up its mind between two sites, one of them lying in the development district. But, on balance, it may appear that the choice should, for transport reasons, be in favour of the site which is not in the development district. The grant would then go to the Board if it decided to establish the new activity in a development district, helping to provide the employment we wish to see in development districts. I hope that that makes the position clear.
If the Post Office were to build a new telephone exchange its choice would be determined simply from the point of view of providing a service, which it has a statutory duty to provide, and that would not be altered by the question of a grant.

There would be no choice whether it should be in a development district or not.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman give us a definition of a choice that is not genuine?

Mr. Price: The definition of a choice that is not genuine would be the one that I have just given—the telephone exchange. It would have to be sited where it would meet local needs. There would usually be no choice at all as to its location.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: As I see it, if private industry wants to develop in a development district it will get a grant. If a nationalised industry wants to develop in the same area, and by doing so will provide additional employment in that area, what is the subtle difference in the matter of being eligible for a grant?

Mr. Price: It is not so much a distinction between ownership; the distinction lies in the type of activity. Many of the activities of what we loosely refer to as nationalised industries are not so much the manufacture of products as the provision of services. Where these are provided they naturally follow the pattern of location of population and involve the bringing of standards up to a common level. The exception to which I have referred was the case of a tar distillation plant—where there is actual manufacture. I do not suggest that there are not other cases. Hon. Members could go on indefinitely thinking of various examples and asking me whether or not they would be eligible for grant, but no hon. Member would be able to develop his case in detail, and I would not have the necessary information to give a definitive judgment. But I am telling the House that this is a change that we feel it right to introduce administratively, as a result of the changes which the Bill will itself introduce into the system of financial assistance for ventures in development districts.
As was rightly pointed out in Committee, hitherto it largely took the form of loan finance. Now the element of a straight grant is coming in, more clearly identified, and on a rather larger scale than hitherto. Therefore, we have examined the position again, and we feel


that it would be right m individual cases to make these grants available where there is a genuine choice open to a public enterprise in determining where to locate an activity.
The Amendment would not in any way alter the position with regard to our making grants to nationalised industries; the Board of Trade already has the legal power to do that. But it is a discretionary power. I hope that what I have said will meet the views of hon. Members opposite. We are prepared to use that discretionary power in a way that we have not done in the past.
With that general outline of the way in which we intend to administer these provisions, I hope that the hon. Member will be willing to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The Parliamentary Secretary at least listened to the arguments we advanced in Committee and has admitted that there is a problem which the Government were not previously willing to admit, but I do not think he has gone the whole way to meet the substantial point we made.
The Parliamentary Secretary first laid down a curious new doctrine, namely, that in the case of the nationalised industries there is hardly ever any choice of location because everything is determined by demand. That is not so. B.O.A.C. has had for a long time a repair and service organisation at Tre-forest, and that might be in any one of many places. This, I think he would say, is a form of manufacture—although perhaps that is not the right term—and covered by the point he made, but that makes a dent in his doctrine.
The main example we adduced in Committee was this. Suppose a power station were to be built in Scotland and the C.E.G.B. was considering whether it should be fired by coal or oil. If under the hon. Gentleman's definition the sinking of a pit to provide coal for the power station was not eligible for grant but the building of an oil refinery was eligible, it could happen that as a result of the operation of the grant oil would be cheaper and, instead of the power station employing 10,000 people in a

pit to produce coal in the area, the refinery would employ only 200 to produce oil.
We want to be assured that a project launched by the National Coal Board, if these were the circumstances, would not be ruled out under the definition put forward. Unless he can say that it would be in the discretion of the Board of Trade, he has not met our points.

Mr. John Brewis: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary spoke mostly about nationalised industries, but we are actually discussing statutory undertakings. I want to call attention to statutory undertakings in rural areas where the need for employment is great.
I refer particularly to agricultural marketing boards, which provide much employment in rural areas, especially the Milk Marketing Board. On the widest definition of "statutory undertaking", the Milk Marketing Board would be so considered and, therefore, not eligible for grant if it wanted to set up a new creamery in a rural district. I ask if the understanding is that if the Milk Marketing Board—not being a nationalised industry in the accepted sense, but more like an agriculturalco-operative—wanted to set up a creamery, it would not come to the Government for a grant, which is one of the main arguments against the proposal, because it would mean transferring money from one pocket to another?
My hon. Friend produced a new conception, the idea of "a genuine choice". If the Milk Marketing Board wanted to start a new creamery, it naturally follows that it would do so in a dairying area because it would have to be near where cows are milked. Would the Board be excluded from grant because it set up the creamery in a milk producing area which happened to be a development district?

Mr. Bruce Millan: My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) raised the question of choice in relation to the South of Scotland Generating Board—I am interested in the Scottish question—and whether there was a choice between building a power station fired by coal or oil. My right hon. Friend spoke from


the point of view of getting the capital grant properly payable to the National Coal Board, but another alternative would be to pay the grant to the South of Scotland Electricity Board if it chose to build the kind of power station that would provide employment rather than the kind that would not.
If I understood the Parliamentary Secretary's argument aright, the choice that had to be involved for the nationalised industry or statutory undertaker was one of location. That is perfectly legitimate—the Government have made a considerable step forward, and it should be welcomed—but in the kind of case I have mentioned the choice would not simply be one of site, although, in the case of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the question of choice of site is involved as well as the kind of fuel to be used in the power station, because if the power station is oil-fired it will be in a different part of Scotland from where it will be if it is coal-fired.
There is, however, an even more important choice involved, and that is the choice between giving employment to large numbers of miners or not giving that employment. That choice is very much more important—or, at least, just as important—as choice of site, because choice of site assumes that the number of jobs to be provided will be the same and that the only decision to be made is whether the jobs will be provided in one place or in another. In the case I have in mind, the choice is even more important because that actual number of jobs provided is affected. The Government could well look at that side of the question again, because it involves a tremendous point of principle.
I may not have been absolutely following what the Parliamentary Secretary said, but he seemed to be tending to restrict this new procedure, or possibility, to manufacturing industry only. He used the Post Office as an illustration. Quite apart from telephone exchanges, and so on, the Post Office also has research establishments, and some of us have been extremely interested in them. I think that the Dollis Hill research station has now gone to Harwell new town, but some of us were very concerned about

getting it to Scotland or some other development district a good deal further north than Harwell.
Would the grant be payable in that case? There is a choice of site, and if the grant could be payable in those circumstances it would be a considerable step forward, because the Post Office and other nationalised industries use the economic argument: "If we go to Scotland or somewhere else we get very far from London, which involves extra expense, and so on." If this kind of grant were payable, it would be of some little assistance. One should not exaggerate the assistance in the case of research establishments, where the costs are very largely costs of personnel rather than costs of buildings and capital equipment, but if the new Government principle could be extended to that kind of case it would make the new step forward even more valuable.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I should like to take the Parliamentary Secretary a little further into his definition of the circumstances in which a grant would be paid to a nationalised industry in respect of some enterprise which was ancillary to its main purpose or function. In the Standing Committee I drew the hon. Gentleman's attention to the position of the National Coal Board in some of its ancillary activities, and the hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to me in his speech tonight. He said that where the National Coal Board had, for example, the intention of putting down a tar distillation plant, if it had a genuine choice of sites and chose to go into a development district rather than to build out-with a development district, they would so administer the grant as to give the nationalised industry—that is, the National Coal Board—the grant to attract it into a development district.
In a very great many cases the National Coal Board will have no such choice. The Board operates very widely in the areas in which there is large-scale unemployment, unemployment which in many cases is the result of the great redundancies which have been caused in the mining industry. When the Board was putting down a new colliery in a development district, it might find that it would be greatly to


its advantage and in the national interest to put down a tar distillation plant alongside the colliery. There would be no possibility of the Board having a choice of sites. If the Board did it in Scotland, I assure the hon. Gentleman it would not have a choice in Scotland of doing it inside a development district or outside a development district. It would have to be inside. In that case, according to the hon. Gentleman's definition, there would be no possibility of a grant.
If in those circumstances a representative of Scottish Tar Distillers Ltd. went to the National Coal Board and said, "We had better build this plant", they would build the plant on exactly the same site as the Board had proposed to build it on, and Scottish Tar Distillers Ltd. would get the grant. Would it not be totally absurd that we should use the taxpayers' money to assist private industry at the expense of the National Coal Board, which is owned and operated in the interests of the taxpayers as a whole? We take money out of the taxpayers' pockets to give it to anybody except the taxpayers. This is utterly ridiculous.
What I have said about tar distillation plants applies equally to brick works. Many brick works are constructed in colliery districts alongside collieries. This was not started by the National Coal Board. This was started by the coal masters, by the private coal interests, who found that they had a lot of residue from coalmining which was very suitable for the manufacture of bricks. Brick works were erected alongside collieries. This is so today. The National Coal Board is a big manufacturer of bricks. It has built a lot of very modern brick works.
If the Board is discontinuing colliery undertakings because they are uneconomic or because the coal has been worked out, the brick works will generally, if they are alongside collieries which are being shut down, go too. This has been our experience. In some cases the Board has been induced to build new brick works alongside large new collieries.
Once again, there will be no choice of site. The Board is either going to do it or not do it. Under the definition given by the hon. Gentleman, the Board, where

it had no choice of site, would not get any grant for machinery or plant or for buildings in the provision of such brickworks. However, if a private enterprise firm interested in brick manufacture proposed to build a brick works on exactly the same site, it would get a grant. This is ridiculous.
11.0 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary's remarks about the operations of the Post Office were not very comforting to us. Reference has already been made to the research establishments that might be built, and we would all like to see the Post Office producing a lot more of its own plant or machinery, particularly in the development districts.
Similar comments can be made even about telephone exchanges. In the centre of Lanarkshire we were to have had a new automatic telephone exchange completed in the town of Hamilton by 1962. The completion date was continually pushed back, and we are now told that it may be completed in 1964, 1965 at the latest. The result of the completion date being pushed back has been that Lanarkshire cannot have Subscriber Trunk Dialling—although S.T.D. is an extremely important matter, particularly from the industrial point of view. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade realises this.
Some of the most important industrialists in the area have been losing orders to firms in areas which have S.T.D. because their customers, particularly those in London and the south of England, simply cannot make contact by telephone with Lanarkshire during the day. I can give the President of the Board of Trade, as I have given the Postmaster-General, the names of companies which have been losing orders because of this difficulty. One company in the area has spent hundreds of pounds putting a telephone line into another exchange area which has S.T.D. By this means the company is able to take advantage of the S.T.D. system operating in that other area.
This is an important matter, because the Parliamentary Secretary will find it difficult to persuade anyone to begin manufacturing goods in any area which does not have S.T.D. One way to attract new industry is, therefore, to give priority


for automatic exchanges to be installed in the areas where industry is to be attracted.
Returning to the power station question, the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to think that the electricity authority for England and Wales had no choice of siting but had to build in the places where the electricity was required. That is not true. He will find, if he consults his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, that power stations are, generally speaking, now being built near the coal fields, if they are to be coal-fired and near to the oil refineries if they are to be oil-fired. With the more efficient transmission of electricity it is now cheaper to have the generating station adjacent to the source of the fuel and transmit the electricity to where it is needed rather than transmit the fuel to the generating station.
Twenty years ago it was cheaper to build generating stations at the point of consumer demand. Now it is cheaper to build them at the point of availability of the fuel to be used. This has become a relevant factor in regard to the power station which, we believe, is to be built in Scotland between now and the time when it will come into commission in about 1969. If this power station is oil-fired, it will be built somewhere on the Clyde estuary in the west of Scotland. If it is coal-fired, it will be built on the estuary of the Forth in the east of Scotland. If it is built on the Forth, it will give jobs to 10,000 miners in Fife. If it is built in the west of Scotland, it might not provide any jobs in the oil industry. At most it might lead to the building of a new oil refinery on the Clyde, and that might give employment to 200 people.
If this power station is to be developed in the east of Scotland, it is not a matter of just giving grants to the South of Scotland Board but also a matter of whether the Coal Board will enjoy grants, because new mines will have to be put down. It will not simply be a matter of continuing employment in existing pits, for new mines will have to be put down in the Fife and Alloa area to supply the power station. No grant might be made for this purpose, but a grant would automatically be available to one of the oil companies for building a refinery in the west of Scotland. Surely this would influence the decision whether the power station would be coal-fired or oil-fired.
We could easily have the position under the Bill, and under the Act as it is being administered by the right hon. Gentleman, that he would give a grant in a development district and the net result would be to reduce employment there by 10,000. The whole purpose of the grant is to increase employment, but a grant to an oil refinery might put 10,000 miners out of work.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. Alternatively, if he wishes to say that the Amendment is unnecessary because he accepts the argument, let him say that from now on he will treat statutory undertakers, including the Milk Marketing Board and all other such authorities, in exactly the same way as he treats subscribers to Aims of Industry.

Mr. Loughlin: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a very simple question arising out of his refusal to treat nationalised industries in an equitable way? I am surprised that his right hon. Friend, who is sitting beside him, has not attempted to reply to the discussion. I am tempted to the point of view that this is another illustration of the inherent opposition of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to any form of social industry.
It may be essential to develop a transport system of one kind or another in a development district. It may be found that as a result of the actions of another Department there is no transport service of any kind in that development district. Let us assume that a private enterprise organisation puts into that district a service which is essential to the district, in precisely the same way as services are provided by nationalised industries. It is necessary for a transport service to be built up in that area, and the private enterprise organisation builds it up.
Will the Ministry then take the same attitude towards private enterprise and say that this is an essential industry which would have been built up in any case by private enterprise and, therefore, it is not entitled to grant? That is the approach to nationalised industries. Are the Government content to sit back and refuse to reply to the arguments which have been advanced from this side of the House? Are they reaching the point again which was reached in the previous


debate this evening when the Executive rides roughshod over the House on every possible occasion? Will they sit there and say and do nothing, knowing that they have their majority in the Division Lobbies, with no question of the case being answered or not? Can we have some reply to the points which have already been expressed from this side of the House?

Mr. E. G. Willis: The Parliamentary Secretary really must reply to the very powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). At the commencement of his speech, in particular, my hon. Friend put his finger on the important difference between the Government's treatment of private and public enterprise. He quoted the case of the tar distillation plant established by the National Coal Board close to a colliery and one established by private enterprise. The private enterprise plant would obtain a grant, but the Coal Board's plant would not obtain one. Surely that is quite unfair.
I have long been a Member of the House, and I remember the nationalisation Acts being passed. I remember the clamour made by hon. Members opposite, when they were on this side of the House, that public enterprise should function competitively and equally with private enterprise. The great argument was that we must not show preference. There must be equality of treatment and the competitive ability of the two must be the same. This was the great cry of hon. Gentlemen opposite. As long as I can remember, this has always been their argument, but they are not prepared to look at it the other way and to say that we must not place private enterprise in a privileged position.
I understand that the philosophy now being expounded by the Parliamentary Secretary is that we can place private enterprise in a privileged position and give it grants, but we must not do this for public enterprise. It must be kept cribbed, cabined and confined, and then we must carry out a propaganda campaign to show how inefficient it is. This is appalling humbug and hypocrisy. I was about to say that it was not understandable, but after watching the Tories over a number of years one must say that they are running true to form. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary must admit

that it is quite wrong that where there are two bodies doing exactly the same job and serving the same ends, one publicly and the other privately owned, the Government should say, "We will give the privately owned industry 10 per cent. grant towards the cost of plant and machinery and 25 per cent. grant towards the cost of buildings but we will give nothing to the publicly owned industry." I do not know what justification there is for it. The hon. Gentleman ought at least to have answered this argument, but up to the moment he has not done so.
11.15 p.m.
My hon. Friend moved the Amendment, and all that the hon. Gentleman has done so far is to reply to it—we are grateful to him for that—to explain that the Government had rather changed their mind in relation to public enterprise. He then stated the position as it would be in future. But he must have realised that when he did that he had then started the debate, and a debate ought to be replied to by the person who started it. Instead of that, we have had this rather arrogant treatment by him. Tonight he reminds me of his first appearance at the Dispatch Box when he tried to treat the House in a similar fashion. It is not quite good enough.
My hon. Friend raised a number of other points in connection with the proposed power station in Fife and the grants which would be applicable, and pointed to the desirability of associating the aid with the employment created—the value of the project in relation to the work created in districts where it is necessary to create work. As I understand it, the purpose of the Local Employment Act is to assist work undertaken for this purpose, and one would have thought that this was the type of work whih should qualify.
The hon. Gentleman ought at least to have the courtesy to reply to these arguments. What is the answer to the point about treating private enterprise preferentially compared with public enterprise? What is the answer to his hon. Friend's point about the Milk Marketing Board? If the hon. Gentleman does not feel inclined to answer us, he ought at least to answer his hon. Friend's very simple question about the position of the Milk Marketing Board in establishing a creamery in a development area. There are rural


milk producing areas in Scotland which could well benefit in this way. The volume of employment might not be large in terms of numbers, but it would be exceedingly important in terms of benefit to the area. One can think of the Forestry Commission wishing to establish sawmills, and developments by other types of industry. Would they qualify? These questions are relevant, for in the areas concerned this type of employment is exceedingly important.
Surely the hon. Gentleman will answer some of the very proper questions which have been put arising out of his statement. We all welcome the statement as far as it goes, but it has given rise to a number of important questions, and surely the hon. Gentleman can at least answer them. I sincerely trust that he will now decide to answer.

Mr. D. Price: I am glad that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is pleased with some of the things I had to say even if he is not pleased with everything. He was very generous just now.

Mr. Willis: I am always generous.

Mr. Price: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) mentioned the B.O.A.C. workshops at Treforest. That is precisely the sort of case we have in mind, where a nationalised industry has a genuine choice of location. Clearly there are many places where they could have gone. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that most excellent example.
May I now pass quickly to the matter of oil-fired versus coal-fired power stations. We have a long-stop limitation which would, on an oil refinery, limit the grant available on the criterion of the cost per job. The House will recall that on Second Reading I made a point of this, and said that whereas this was a standard grant, we had to have some limitation because there could be really enormous sums being given under the 10 per cent. grant with very few people employed in relation to very large sums of capital expenditure.
In fact, the amount of money which would be going to a power station in relation to employment would be very large. However, I am doubtful—I would not be more over-certain than this—how

far the availability of grant one way or the other would make a difference in the choice by the C.E.G.B. in deciding marginally whether it wished a power station to be coal-fired or oil-fired. Certainly if a case could be made marginally that the amount of grant that was going to a new oil refinery was going to make a difference, we would be prepared to look at it, but I have my doubts as to whether the actual sums involved would make as great a difference as some hon. Members think.

Mr. T. Fraser: If the Minister reads this Bill in conjunction with the principal Act he will see that if he gives a grant it must be 10 per cent.

Mr. Price: Section l(3,a) of the principal Act says:
…the Board shall have regard…to the relationship between the expenditure involved and the employment likely to be provided.
The Bill that we are considering tonight merely makes amendments and additions to it. Clause 1(2) of the Bill states:
A grant may be made under this section in any case where the Board consider it expedient for the purposes of Part I of the principal Act to make such a grant, and the Board shall, in making such a grant, impose such conditions as they think fit for securing that the machinery or plant will continue to serve those purposes.

Mr. Fraser: Am I not right in saying that when one reads this Bill along with the principal Act one sees that the Minister may or may not give a grant, but that if he gives a grant under Clause 1 of this Bill he must give a grant of 10 per cent.? That is what subsection (3) says.

Mr. Price: I think that if the hon. gentleman reads it in conjunction with Section 1 of the principal Act—"Purpose for which Part I powers exercisable, and duration of powers"—he will see that this has an overriding effect on the whole Act.

Mr. Fraser: No.

Mr. Price: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis),the sort of statutory bodies he has in mind would be eligible in the same way as the nationalised industries under the same sort of terms.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) mentioned the example


of the Post Office research station. Again that would be the sort of case that one would have in mind, of a project where there is a genuine choice of location.
With regard to the question by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) about the new telephone exchange in central Lanarkshire. I suggest that the problem there is not whether the exchange is or is not going to central Lanarkshire, but what position it occupies in the programme of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. I suggest that that is a matter between the hon. Member and my right hon. Friend, as it were—whether it is in the programme; and payment or non-payment of standard grant will not determine whether the exchange is or is not built in central Lanarkshire. That is the sort of case I have in mind as one in which I do not think it would help anybody to make standard grant available.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and one or two others, including the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West Mr. Loughlin), raised the question whether there is some element of unfairness between public and private enterprise in these matters. As I said earlier tonight, in my first remarks, quite a large part of the activities of the nationalised industries are services rather than the manufacture of products, and in many cases the nationalised industry is a statutory monopoly and there is no private enterprise competitor. Of course, there is a number of activities—tar distillation would be a good one—in which a private enterprise or a nationalised concern could be putting up a works; either could, for instance, put up a tar distillery. Again I would say that one must remember that the nationalised industry as against the private one has access to finance on a better scale—cheaper, or more freely available, or, at any rate, more certainly available—than a private firm. I think the cases in which public and private enterprise are in direct competition, in the sort of cases covered by this Bill, are not as great as hon. Members have in mind.

Mr. Loughlin: Would the Minister consider the railways, for instance? If the railways are to close down because they cannot get grants, and private enter-

prise is to provide road transport, is that equitable, does he think?

Mr. Price: The hon. Member will not expect me to become involved now in the far bigger issue of competition between road and rail. Nor do I think he would want to distort the whole of this Bill and the grants made under it in trying to resolve by it the argument between road and rail. Even if I rightly suspect what his attitude on this issue is, I do not think even he would want to use this Bill as a method of co-ordinating the transport of this country.
In reply to the hon. Member for Hamilton, the position is that no grant would be given if the cost per job test were not met; which means that the oil refinery would be out completely.
I hope that may go some way to answering some of the points which hon. Members have made.

Mr. Jay: Just to clear this point finally, is it not the case plainly, for the Act and the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) says, that if a grant is given it must be 10 per cent., neither more nor less?

Mr. Price: I can confirm that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in that interpretation.

Amendment negatived.

>Clause 2.—(Amendments relating to BUILDING GRANTS.)

11.30 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 12 and 13 and to insert:
and subsection (2) of that section is hereby repealed".
The effect of this Amendment is to restore the position as it was on Second Reading. [Hon. Members: "Shame."] I think that when hon. Members have heard what I have to say they will agree that this is the right course and that there is no reason for shame. The Amendment in Committee was carried by seven votes to six. It would require the Board to pay in every case a building grant of 25 per cent., which is the proposal in this Bill, or a grant of the amount resulting from a calculation under the formula of 1960, whichever was the higher.
I would be the first to agree that superficially this proposal is attractive, because it appears to give to industrialists putting up a factory in a development district the benefit of both worlds. If I had been satisfied that it really would further the object of the Act—to relieve unemployment—I would very readily have considered what I could do to meet the idea underlying the Amendment. I will not argue whether the Amendment was in an entirely satisfactory form, because if the principle underlying an Amendment is acceptable, I know the House will always accept a Government Amendment in exchange in order to put the thing in proper form.
But I am convinced—and I hope to convince the House—that to accept the Amendment passed in Committee would be to undertake a laborious piece of administration to no purpose. First, the Amendment in Committee gives the Board no discretion at all. The Board would in every case have to ascertain the amount payable under both methods, the old and the new, and then pay whichever happened to be higher.
We could not, for example, on the one hand pay on Merseyside the standard grant of 25 per cent. without at the same time finding out the alternative figure, while on the other hand operate the old formula exclusively in the Highlands on the hopeful assumption that this formula would be more beneficial than the new.

Mr. William Ross: The old formula has not brought much benefit to the Highlands anyway.

Mr. Errol: I know that the hon. Member does not think much of the Act.

Mr. Ross: I do not think much of the right hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Erroll: The hon. Member does not think much of me either. However, the old formula is one of considerable complexity, and, indeed, has been criticised by hon. Members and by some industrialists on that very account. I should like to remind the House of what the old formula is. It seemed to be a good one at the time, and we have had considerable success with it. But it is complicated. Under the 1960 Act, the amount of any grant has to be 85 per cent.
…of the cost, as estimated by the Board, of providing an adequate building…of the size required by the applicant…and reason-

ably suitable for the purposes for which he requires it, over the amount at which in the opinion of the Board such a building might, if completed at the time of applicaton…be expected to be sold on a sale in the open market.
This means that in considering a grant we have to get expert advice from two separate Departments.
First, the Ministry of Public Building and Works, through its quantity surveyor's department, has to estimate the cost of a reasonable building of the size required. Secondly, the district valuer, in another department, has to advise on the value of such a building, bearing in mind that the building has not been built. Both expert advisers need plans and specifications, and the valuer has to make an inspection of the site. Even when these operations have been carried out and we have told the applicant the amount of the building grant, he will not know whether it will pay him better than the new formula of 25 per cent., because what the Ministry of Public Building and Works must ascertain is the estimated cost of a hypothetical building.
Under the new formula, what we have to find out is the actual cost, excluding extravagances, of the actual building. So in every case there must be three quite complicated operations instead of one. I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. This would be the position if we were to accept the Amendment that was passed in Committee. That is why I thought it only right to point out the considerable administrative complications involved if we were to accept even the principle underlying the Opposition Amendment passed in Committee.
I would not shrink from this if I thought that it would serve a useful purpose, because I would be the first to agree that administration should be the servant of policy and not its master. I am not making the case on the ground of administrative complication, although I thought it only right to inform the House that the administrative complications would be very severe, but I have had an analysis made of the building grants so far offered and accepted under the existing legislation to see whether any hardship would be caused, and it is clear that none would be caused.
Of the 90 building grants so far agreed upon, only in nine does the amount exceed 25 per cent. of the estimated cost,


and in five of these it is 31 per cent. or less. As actual building costs almost invariably turn out to be higher than the estimated cost, so far as we can tell at this stage it is probable that in only about four cases out of the 90 would the grant have turned out to be above 25 per cent. of the actual cost; and there is no reason to think that in any of the four cases that I have mentioned, out of the 90, the project would have been lost to the development district on this account.

Mr. Brewis: Surely, in order to make this point, my right hon. Friend should state in how many cases the building grant has been less than 25 per cent. under the present Act. What he is doing is to remove the preference from remote areas and make all areas absolutely equal. If he says that in only about 10 cases will the grant be over 25 per cent. at present, he should state in how many cases it will be under 25 per cent. and show what the present preference is.

Mr. Erroll: In quite a substantial number of cases a larger grant will be payable in future under the standard grant procedure. It would also be a mistake to asume that a higher grant would always have been payable under the old system in remote areas, because one of the quirks of the district valuers' system is that it does not necessarily follow that the greatest percentage difference would arise in the areas which are most remote.

Mr. Ross: Yet this was the argument used at the time.

Mr. Erroll: I am telling the House how the position works out today. There is no reason to think that any of the four projects that I have mentioned would have been lost to a development district if the applicants had been offered the standard grant.
I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that we should not be justified in setting in motion complex machinery to do a job which in about 95 per cent of cases will be futile, and will be known to those operating it to be futile.
It was argued in Committee that a higher grant should be payable in remoter districts where it would be most needed. This is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway

(Mr. Brewis). I want to deal with it because other hon. Members are also interested in it. The facts do not bear this out. Of the nine cases I have mentioned three occurred in Scotland, three in Wales and three in England. Some were in remote areas and others were not. For example, one of the nine was in the Isle of Wight, which can hardly be regarded as a remote district, being 80 or 90 miles from London. The outcome does not depend on geography but on the judgment of the district valuer concerned in the very nature of the system.
This does not mean that the Government are withdrawing support from projects likely to give employment to the remoter areas. On the contrary, we are anxious to do anything we can to introduce industry to those areas. I have had very much in mind the interesting proposal put to me by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). I went into it carefully but did not think it was a "runner." The way in which we give help to encourage projects to remoter areas is by running on a cost per job basis.
We have always been prepared to take a more generous view when the project is for a remote area, and this will continue to be our policy. When a firm is considering going to a remote area we can assure it that there will be a more generous assessment of right to receive assistance by a better assessment on a cost per job basis. That probably is a better and more practical way of dealing with the relatively occasional projects we are able to steer to remote areas. I am glad to give the assurance to my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, who have properly expressed concern about the remoter areas, that we shall continue to maintain this principle of assisting such projects in the most suitable and practical way.
Another point which has been raised is that industrialists sometimes cannot find in development districts suitable building land and have to build where heavy piling is necessary because of subsidence. This point was raised in the early stages of the Bill by the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas). Provision of heavy piling and special support because of subsidence add greatly to the cost of the


whole structure. The building grant is payable on site preparation as well as on actual building, so a quarter of the extra cost is carried by the grant. I recognise that the whole cost may be greater and the industrialist may incur greater cost, but we are able to deal with this problem because B.O.T.A.C. is always prepared to consider abnormal initial costs and it is open to any applicant to make a case to B.O.T.A.C. showing that his requirements are greatly increased through the greater initial outlay on site preparation.

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear whether the additional cost involved for the prospective industrialist will be fully met, or is there merely a grant towards the extra cost? would the full cost be met?

Mr. Erroll: That depends on the circumstances of the individual case. It might, for example, be the case that the industrialist would normally be expected to meet the cost of this particular provision if it were a normal provision. The grant would cover additional provision over and above what one would expect in respect of a factory built on level land with no difficulties of preparation, but B.O.T.A.C. takes a wide and sensible view of these problems. I think this is the way to deal with the problem which the hon. Member raised on Second Reading.
11.45 p.m.
The other point raised in Committee related to advance factories. It was argued with some force that local authorities—and, in particular, new town corporations—building advance factories were at some disadvantage because neither they nor the industrialists acquiring factories from them could get a building grant. Hon. Members will appreciate that this also goes for advance factories built by the Board of Trade in development districts, and we have been considering whether any changes could or should be made in the terms of sale of these advance factories.
Up to now, purchasers have not received building grants. They have been required to pay the full building cost, but have been allowed to pay over a number of years on favourable terms. This has raised certain anomalies in the

past, and now that the building grant is raised to a standard 25 per cent. we are taking the opportunity to make a change. In future, any industrialist who buys from the Board of Trade in a development district either a factory built to order or an advance factory will be regarded as eligible for building grant of 25 per cent. of the cost, provided that the agreement with the Board to acquire the factory is entered into before the building is finally completed. This is normal procedure. We do not finally complete a factory until we know the occupier, so that we can make any alterations to suit the individual occupier—

Mr. Jay: But what happens in the normal case where the factory is rented?

Mr. Erroll: I will come to that in a moment.
Where a grant is paid, the exceptionally favourable deferred terms granted in development districts will no longer be available. If deferred payment is allowed on the balance to be paid, commercial rates will be charged. I think that this is reasonable, since the industrialists will now pay only three-quarters of the cost of the building instead of paying the whole.
We are prepared to see the same arrangements operate for factories built in development districts by development corporations or new town corporations, and factories paid for either in cash or on deferred terms will be eligible for building grants. It is particularly important that the purchaser on deferred terms will also be eligible for the building grant. I think that that arrangement goes a long way to meeting the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), because purchase on deferred terms is getting very near to renting a factory.
Where a person is only renting, the situation is rather different. We have no power to pay the building grant on rented factories, since clearly the tenant-occupier has not provided them, but I think that what I have said will undoubtedly encourage the new town corporations, in particular, to build factories, in the knowledge that any industrialist wishing to purchase a factory can obtain this very large contribution towards the purchase price.

Mr. Jay: But would it not be logical to give a corresponding reduction in rent, particularly as a reduction in rent was given in earlier years but which, apparently, the Board of Trade is not giving now?

Mr. Erroll: In respect of Board of Trade factories, of course, the rents are ixed by the Board, and it really makes no sense to give a grant back to ourselves in respect of factories we have already built, but in the case of local authority factories—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Erroll: One intervention at a time. The right hon. Gentleman has already intervened twice, and, to be fair, I think that I should now try to deal with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan)—unless the right hon. Gentleman wishes to hog the lot, as he sometimes tries to do.

Mr. Millan: What about local authority factories let out to rent? Why should not the grant be paid to the local authorities?

Mr. Erroll: For the reason I have already given. The grant can be paid only to the person providing the employment, and the local authority is not providing the employment. I believe that the introduction of the much more generous terms in respect of obtaining the grant when one is buying on mortgage terms will mean that most providers of employment will prefer to purchase the factories rather than to rent them. That is a very desirable development that we want to encourage, because it means that the provider of employment will be putting down his roots in the locality, and becoming the owner of a factory instead of merely renting one. I think, therefore, that it is reasonable that we should stick to the line which I have proposed. It would not be possible under the parent Act or under the proposed amending Bill to make the grant payable to the very few local authorities which are at present contemplating building factories to rent. Where they are building them to sell as advance factories or for particular tenants, by the procedure which I have announced the occupier will be able to get the grant, which in turn will be reflected in the

purchase price which will be payable to the local authority.

Mr. Jay: If the President of the Board of Trade would answer a point satisfactorily, it would not have to be raised again. What is his argument about the ordinary case of the factory which is built by the Board of Trade, remains in its ownership, and is let to a firm? If there is to be a 25 per cent. grant where the firm buys the factory, is it not logical that there should be a corresponding grant where the factory is let? I realise that that would not be possible under the Section we are discussing now, but as the Board of Trade has done this in the past it clearly has power to do it under the legislation generally.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the two right hon. Gentlemen would assist me. I do not for the moment follow—it may be my ignorance of the Statute in question—why the matter is affected by the Amendment to which our discussion is confined. If it is not, it is out of order.

Mr. Erroll: I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that we are all somewhat out of order. I hope that nobody in the House will think that I am trying to escape from answering the very interesting point put by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: I must accept the onus, because I have no power to allow discussion which is out of order on the Amendment.

Mr. Erroll: Then perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might sum up the argument I have made in favour of the Amendment, namely that the standard grant which we are introducing of 25 per cent. of the actual cost has several positive advantages. It is certain, whereas the outcome of the old formula has proved very variable. We thought that it was a sound concept at the time. It has been quite successful, but its variability has been a handicap.
The new formula is predictable. Although obviously the actual cost of a factory is not known till the end when everything has been built, the industrialist can go ahead in the knowledge that he will get one-quarter of the total actual cost, subject only to the elimination of any luxuries.
Finally, the standard grant is substantial. It is more than 50 per cent. higher than the average of the building grants so far given, and I hope that that will answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and will encourage firms to build for themselves and so put down their roots in a locality in a way which will give every confidence of their staying and expanding there. I have tried to give a full and reasoned explanation as to why I would like the House to accept the Amendment, and I hope that in a spirit of co-operation it will agree to do so.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the date-line of the new formula, when it conies into operation? Is this to be retrospective?

Mr. Erroll: That was all explained on Second Reading. The intention is that it will apply from the date of the announcement of the new provisions, but there are certain points regarding applications in the mill, so to speak.

Mr. Prentice: The latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is one which afforded some satisfaction to hon. Members on this side, but only partially. No doubt some of my hon. Friends will want to pursue it on Third Reading, when they will be more in order than the right hon. Gentleman was when he was making that part of his speech. I shall deal now with the part of his speech which was in order, namely, that on the Amendment. I think that he was trying to extricate himself from a rather embarrassing position. It is almost unkind to remind him after all the embarrassments the Government have had recently that one of them was their defeat in Standing Committee on this point. I do not want to rub it in too much, but there were 12 hon. Members of the Standing Committee from the benches opposite and eight hon. Members from this side. Nevertheless, we won the vote by seven votes to six because at that moment only one of my hon. Friends was away while six hon. Members opposite were away, including the President of the Board of Trade. This, perhaps, is a commentary on the relative diligence of the two sides in approaching this matter. Now, however, with the juggernaut of their majority, the Government are attempting

to overthrow the decision of the Committee.
This whole matter may not concern a great many grants, but my hon. Friends and I are still in favour of the decision of the Standing Committee. We are in favour of the 25 per cent. formula in the majority of cases as opposed to the old formula. It is simpler and more predictable and will enable occupiers to get a quick conversion of what they are entitled to instead of the long delays. It will also be higher on average, because previously it was 17 per cent. and now it will be 25 per cent. However, there is still a case for saying that in exceptional circumstances the respective occupier should have a choice. Under the old formula, grants in some cases went above 25per cent. The highest on record is 41 per cent. of the building costs. That will no longer be possible under the new formula.
The President of the Board of Trade said that of about 90 grants made under the 1960 Act, only nine qualified under the old formula for more than 25 per cent. I was rather shocked to learn that since the passage of the 1960 Act only 90 grants had been made under the Section with which we are concerned. Considering the persistent unemployment in certain parts of the country and the districts which qualify under the Act, I should have thought that the number would have been greater. But if only such a small number was involved, the argument about administrative difficulties cannot be substantiated. A lot of administration cannot be involved and there should be a choice for the occupier.
I acknowledge that the wording of our Amendment would mean that the Board of Trade would have to work out both bits of arithmetic in every case. I agree, therefore, that the wording was not satisfactory; but only a drafting Amendment would have put the matter right. What we have in mind for the generality of cases is that there should be a grant of 25 per cent. but that in special cases the occupier might apply for the other formula if he thought that to do so would be more beneficial to him—his getting the 25 per cent. and some extra if it was found later to be justified.
There might be special circumstances either because his building costs would


be higher or because the value of the premises, once built, would be lower. There might be local reasons, in some cases it being the remoteness of the area, not remote in the ordinary sense but in the sense of an area to which building materials had to be transported. Such a place might be the Isle of Wight. There might be other cases where the geology of the area required special arrangements, such as foundation work. There might be areas where mining subsidence required alternativee arrangements, or an unattractive area which lowered the value of the premises. To qualify at all, whatever the area, it must be a place of high and persistent unemployment. In other words, we are discussing cases where there is high and persistent unemployment and about which there is, for some reason, a difference between the cost of building the plant and its value. In such circumstances there is something to be said for giving a choice to the occupier concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman said that these special circumstances might be taken care of in other ways. I would like him to clarify this point because Clause 2 states that the grant will be 25 per cent. It would seem to be a fixed figure and to limit the grant under the main Act in regard to the cost of the building. Will he clarify that? It seems to rule out special grants being made in the circumstances which he mentioned. He said that the Government would try to help in remote areas where for some reason there were specially high costs.
With unemployment as high as it is, and with all the Government's policies having failed in recent years to counteract the results of their other policies which make for high unemployment, they ought not to throw away anything which might make the difference between even one enterprise establishing itself in an area of unemployment and its not doing so. Even if there are only a few cases over a number of years in which the old formula would help, we ought not to throw away the chance of these enterprises being establishd in the areas concerned.
We feel that on balance we won the argument in Committee, just as we won the vote in Committee, and we feel that

no case has been made out for the Amendment.

12 m.

Mr. T. Fraser: I hope that we shall have a reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). The President of the Board of Trade, trying to be helpful, said that he would ensure that industrialists establishing factories in remote areas would be generously treated. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) pointed to considerable additional work, for example, in piling, to provide a factory, and the right hon. Gentleman said that in such a case there would be generous examination of the assistance to be given to the industrialist.
Let us not confuse ourselves. The Board of Trade may accept application for grant or loan under the 1960 Act, but in the assistance towards the provision of a building, the extent of the right hon. Gentleman's generosity will be governed by Clause 2 of the Bill. An application for a building grant under the Bill will still be sent to B.O.T.A.C. That is quite unlike the machinery grant. If B.O.T.A.C. recommends to the President that a building grant shall be made, under the Clause the building grant shall be 25 per cent.—or, if the Clause remains as left by the Committee, the higher figure which would have resulted from the calculation made under the 1960 Act. But if the Minister's Amendment is accepted, and we restore the Bill to its Second Reading form, it will be a flat rate of 25 per cent., no more and no less.
Where will the Minister get the power to deal generously with a development district in a remote area in respect of the cost of providing the building? How is he to be generous to the developer in South Wales or anywhere else where the cost of building is exceptionally high because of the difficult building conditions? I submit to him that he has no power to exercise any discretion if his Amendment is carried. He will not be able to give any grant in addition to this one in respect of the provision of the building.
The next thing that we have been discussing, and which the Minister had in mind, was whether additional costs are involved by the developer in respect of the provision of the building either


because of the remoteness or because of the exceptional cost of the building. I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's good faith in the intentions which he has expressed in putting the Amendment before the House, but I doubt very much his ability to do anything to honour the promises he has made if the Amendment is carried. In all the circumstances, I hope that he will consider this now and say something about it before the House finally reaches a decision.

Mr. Erroll: I should like to try to deal with the important point put by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). Amending legislation is governed by the parent Act. The important thing to look at is Section 1(3) of that Act where it is stated that
In determining whether and in what manner to exercise their powers under this Part of this Act for the benefit of any development district the Board shall have regard—

(a) to the relationship between the expenditure involved and the employment likely to be provided…"
That still applies in spite of the amending legislation.

Mr. T. Fraser: No.

Mr. Erroll: Yes, it does.

Mr. Ross: What does it mean?

Mr. Erroll: It means, to express it colloquially, a cost per job basis. We expect that on the normal operation of the cost per job basis a 25 per cent. building grant will be payable, but if the cost per job basis is so unfavourable, as in the case of the oil refinery referred to earlier, no grant will be paid. If a building grant is to be payable it must be a 25 per cent. grant. That is clear and it is assessed on a cost per job basis. We expect that in certain cases the cost per job formula will allow more to be paid out than a 25 per cent. building grant and that will provide what I might call a certain amount of elbow room for B.O.T.A.C. to make loans and grants under that machinery, which of course it would not be able to do if the building grant of 25 per cent. had absorbed the whole of the amount of assistance which the application of the cost per job formula had deemed to be right.

Mr. Ross: This is nonsense.

Mr. Erroll: When the hon. Member comes to listen more closely he will understand that it is not nonsense. I am anxious to explain what is a rather intricate administrative matter. The cost per job basis may show that the firm will be eligible for assistance of a certain amount and the 25 per cent. grant would absorb less than that amount. If the firm wished to obtain assistance for special sewerage or piling or any other purpose connected with the undertaking it could apply to B.O.T.A.C. which, other things being equal, would be able to make a grant towards the special needs up to a total limit of the cost per job ceiling, because it had not been wholly absorbed by the 25 per cent. building grant. Therefore, I should have legislative authority to make the grant which the hon. Member for Hamilton suggested I did not possess.
That deals with the building grant. As for the remote areas, there again the same procedure applies, because on a higher cost per job basis it is possible for the ceiling of total assistance to be made available to be higher and therefore for special arrangements to be made available for firms in remote areas which might wish to have additional assistance.

Mr. Millan: Surely the difficulty will arise not where the cost per job basis would give a grant above 25 per cent. but where it would give a grant less than 25 per cent. Under the old position, if the formula worked out that the grant was 15 per cent. or even in some cases 10 per cent., this might be well within the cost per job formula and, therefore, the grant would be payable. But under the new provisions no grant at all would be payable. It is not a question of the industrialist getting 25 per cent. instead of 10 or 15 per cent. The point is that under this formula the industrialist would not get any grant at all because the 25 per cent. would be beyond the cost per job formula. That is the point which the President of the Board of Trade has to answer.

Mr. Erroll: That is a quite different point, but I am glad to answer it. In our calculations we are confident, with our experience of the cost per job calculations, that the vast majority of straightforward industrial enterprises will be more than covered by the 25 per cent. building


grant and that it will be only the exceptional capital-intensive cases, such as the oil refinery, which will not be eligible for the 25 per cent. building grant and the 10 per cent. machinery grant. It would be ridiculous in the case of a refinery costing £15 million to grant £3 million or £4 million to provide 100 jobs. Only the odd case will be caught by the application of the principles which I have been outlining.
So I can assure the hon. Member for Hamilton that I shall be able to do as has been explained—with B.O.T.A.C. providing assistance for the general purposes of the business, in order to top up, so to speak, the requirements of the firm above the 25 per cent. building grant where appropriate.

Mr. T. Fraser: I would again ask the President of the Board of Trade to have another look at this before the Bill becomes law. As I understand the principal Act, the Board of Trade may give grants or loans which would be related to the employment to be provided, but, as I understand it, the Bill will limit the President's ability to give assistance in respect of the cost arising out of building. Therefore, though he can still give grants towards the cost of transferring plant and machinery from one part of the country to another, and even for the training of workers, and certainly for putting in a sewerage scheme and so on, he will not, if the Bill becomes law, be able, without acting illegally, to give a grant in respect of the provision of the building beyond 25 per cent. Will he look at this before the Bill goes to another place?

Mr. Millan: May I again put the point I made in an intervention, because it is a valid one? While it may not affect a large number of cases, there may be a marginal number of cases where the criterion that the President of the Board of Trade has laid down about the cost per job coupled with the inflexible provision of the 25 per cent. grant may prevent certain firms, which under the existing legislation would get smaller grants than 25 per cent., from getting any grants at all.
If the President is right in saying that the cost per job criterion will be maintained, there may be a case where the 25 per cent. building grant will be too high to meet that criterion. As far as

I can see, he doss not have powers to make a grant of less than 25 per cent. In other words, unless one is entitled to 25 per cent., one gets nothing at all. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is an improvement—I am not trying to suggest otherwise. However, under the old system the grant, as calculated, might have been less than 25 per cent., perhaps 15 per cent., and that might have met the cost per job criterion and, therefore, the grant would have been payable, but under the proposed system the grant will not be payable. The right hon. Gentleman has said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This seems to be a second intervention by the hon. Gentleman, and, in that case, it is the second intervention in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, as I see it. We must have some regard to procedure.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Millan: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I understood that the President of the Board of Trade had finished,

Mr. Speaker: I should have called the hon. Member, and I now so call him.

Mr. Millan: Actually, I had made my comments. I understood that I had been called and that I was not intervening in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade.
I think I have made my point. The President of the Board of Trade has dealt with the case where there might be a necessity to pay more than a 25 per cent. grant and he has said that there is discretion under the ordinary B.O.T.A.C. arrangements for that to be done. But these other marginal cases below 25 per cent., which may be very few in number, certainly merit investigation.

Mr. Erroll: If I may, with the leave of the House, reply, I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that the building grant and the Section 4 assistance are not alternatives. A firm may apply for both a building grant and Section 4 assistance. Therefore, it is possible to have general Section 4 assistance. As regards the building grant, take the piling or special foundation arrangements as an example; that is not just part of the building. That


is in the form of special site preparation in order to make the site suitable for the erection of a building, in the same way as the special enlargement of a sewer to carry away effluent, which is done because the general sewer in the neighbourhood is not big enough for the purpose, is not regarded as part of the building but is eligible for a special grant under B.O.T.A.C. because it is necessary in order to enable the factory to function. So with some of these special features. They do not interfere with the legality of the 25 per cent. building grant.
I readily accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I should look at the matter more closely, and I shall be the first to come back to the House and offer an explanation if I am wrong in what I have been saying. These are intricate and involved matters, and I shall, of course, look carefully at what has been put to me in this debate.
As to the point which was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), we think that the way in which we have devised the figures will cover virtually all cases. That is on the basis of our experience so far. But, as with the intervention of the hon. Member for Hamilton, I will consider the point and I undertake to look carefully at it, and I shall not hesitate to come back here if I have anything further to add to my remarks.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Jay: Since the President of the Board of Trade is so modest in recommending the Bill to the House on Third Reading, I will make just a few short observations. First, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will answer the question which he was unable to answer earlier because it was out of order; that is, why he should not give a similar concession on the rented Board of Trade factories as well as granting assistance to the extent of 25 per cent. in the case of a Board of Trade-owned factory which is sold to a firm.
If we are to have a situation in which this grant is available for a factory which

is sold and not for a factory which is rented, there will be a certain pressure for firms to buy rather than to rent factories. I am doubtful whether that would be a good thing in the long run, because when a factory goes out of the possession of the Board of Trade in these areas it is no longer in so strong a position to see that it is used to give employment, which is, after all, the whole purpose of spending public money in the first instance.
As to the Bill in general, I think we ought to remember before parting with it that the whole of this legislation, and the Bill as it now stands, is to expire in 1967. It may be said that this does not matter very much because the whole of this Government will expire long before 1967 and, therefore, it may be an academic matter. Nevertheless, I think it is rather typical of the somewhat light-hearted attitude of the Government to this problem that, whereas the previous legislation in 1945 was permanent, we now have legislation which has only another four years to run.
I still find a little curious the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary of the reason why, in spite of these allegedly new powers, the Government are proposing to spend under this legislation only about two-thirds as much in this coming year as last year. We pressed the Parliamentary Secretary about that, and he told us that the reason was that there were some major motor car schemes which came into the previous year. I am sure that is the reason; but, of course, it does not alter the fact. The fact is that in the coming year a good deal less is going to be spent, despite all these debates, than in the previous financial year.
It is also worth observing that the figures of unemployment in all these areas are still very high, and have remained high during the period when we have been debating this Bill. Unemployment in the United Kingdom in May, on the latest figures, was 592,000, just under 600,000. This is as high as it was last December, actually 130,000 higher than it was in May a year ago and ¼ million higher than it was in May two years ago. That shows that there is nothing to be complacent about in the unemployment figures at the present time. Indeed, when we find that they are as high in May as in December, almost in mid-winter, I think


it shows that the situation is very far from being a satisfactory one.
I do not think we had a full and satisfactory explanation on this issue of the treatment of public enterprises as compared with private enterprises. I am not going into the detail of this again, but I would just ask the President of the Board of Trade why he cannot say that he is going to treat both public and private enterprise for the purposes of this Bill on exactly the same basis. I should have thought that the right thing to do—not to have any distinction at all. It should be perfectly possible to leave it like that.
We have had since the previous debates on this Bill a Report from the Select Committee on this legislation, and I should like to draw attention to the fact that that non-party or all-party Select Committee repeats many of the criticisms of Government policy we have for a long time been advancing from this side of the House. For instance, it asks the Government to take some steps to speed up and streamline the procedure under B.O.T.A.C. The right hon. Gentleman has agreed, as these debates have gone on, that what he calls Section 4 assistance under B.O.T.A.C., the previous forms of B.O.T.A.C. loans and grants, is still going to be important in future, only we have never felt fully satisfied that what action the President of the Board of Trade proposes to take under this legislation could not have been taken under that Section. However that may be, since B.O.T.A.C. is going to remain in existence, and since the Select Committee reinforces the criticisms we have made here, I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us tonight that he is going to do something to see that these delays are less troublesome in future.
The Select Committee also, incidentally, supported the criticisms we have made of the way in which the Government in the last two years have been restraining the estate management corporations from taking as active part as they would wish in helping to get industry into these areas. I will not quote what the Committee said because it is now somewhat late, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has studied the Report and that he will take notice of what it said on this subject.
It seems absurd to have these organisations in existence ready and able to do this job and yet inhibit them from doing it. I hope that even at this late stage he will be able to tell us that he is taking notice of the Select Committee's criticisms and will do something about them.
Perhaps the most important point of all is to realise that it is no good granting these powers, however new or not new they may be, to the Government if they do not use them. The trouble has not been lack of powers to discharge. It has been that over and over again they have not been used resolutely enough. If they were used vigorously enough, I do not believe that it would be all that difficult to surmount these problems. But if we had a repetition of the House granting powers to a Government who almost totally fail to use them, or use them only in an inert or ineffective fashion, then I am afraid that as soon as we get past the summer months there will be the danger of unemployment rising again.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I shall be very brief. I want to refer to the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in respect of the 25 per cent. grant for buildings. He made it clear that this grant would be in respect of factories which were sold and not let. He spoke of the advantage this would be to new town corporations and others.
Local authorities which have big central area development schemes are in great difficulty. I ask him to reconsider this. These local authorities have no land and, if industrial undertakers insist on having land and digging their roots in as he mentioned, then, of course, it means that the local authorities will turn to providing factories for rent.
The right hon. Gentleman will find that in a short space of time representations will be coming to him from local authorities on this. It is a most important point that, because of the lack of land in central areas, local authorities in development districts will not be able to help industrialists to provide factories.
The Bill does not take account of this difficulty. It is true, however, that many of the proposals in it are to be welcomed because they go some way to meeting


some of the difficulties. But what is the sense of going some way to meeting problems in the development districts while, within the cities, the very core of the problem, there is the difficulty of finding land on which industrialists can develop? If the local authorities, in order to keep industrialists instead of over spilling them and denuding themselves of rateable value, are to be able to provide rented factories to retain such industrialists, then this indeed will be a great advantage. I hope these points will have further consideration from the right hon. Gentleman.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Millan: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said, hon. Members on this side of the House have been a little sceptical of the Bill, not because we have not welcomed its provisions generally, but because we have felt that the powers have already been available under existing legislation if only the Government had been willing to use them. But the new Bill having been introduced, it seems a pity that the Government have not used the opportunity it afforded to tidy up the legislation a great deal more than they have done. A number of defects in the present legislation have been referred to earlier this evening, and there are a number of quite indefensible gaps in the provisions which are now being made.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned the discrepancy between the treatment of private enterprise on the one hand and nationalised industries on the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan). has just drawn attention to the fact that it seems that local authorities who build factories to rent are not going to get the benefit of the 25 per cent. building grant. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at some of these matters yet again. He said earlier that it was desirable that factories should be sold rather than rented. I am not going to argue this as a matter of principle, but as a matter of pure practice there are many instances in which it is not going to be possible for a local authority to sell a factory rather than rent it.
There is an interesting example in Glasgow at present, in connection with one of the central redevelopment areas—

the Anderson Cross Redevelopment Area—in which the local authority is providing factory space, in a very restricted area of only a few acres, for no less than 269 existing industrialists. In that situation it is quite unrealistic of the right hon. Gentleman to talk about the local authority selling factories. It is not possible to put up 269 separate factories; in this instance only small industrialists are concerned, and multi-storeyed factories will be built. Many industrialists are not in a financial position to afford to buy the factory accommodation which will be provided for them, and therefore it must be rented.
Yet we have this quite ridiculous discrepancy against this kind of local authority enterprise which in every other respect the Government say they are only too willing to encourage. Local authorities are being encouraged to get ahead with central redevelopment to provide advance factories and factory space for industrialists, and the rest. But in these circumstances—which I suggest will become more common as central redevelopment and other localauthority development takes place—there will be discrimination against local authorities. I seriously ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the position again. It is a pity that, having the opportunity provided by the Bill, the Government have not gone a good deal further in dealing with points like that.
We have the impression that the Bill was not terribly well thought out. We had the right hon. Gentleman's announcement of quite substantial concessions only this evening. One feels that if proper thought had been given to the matter before the Bill was published some of these things might well have been incorporated in the Bill when it was in Committee.
Generally speaking, we welcome the Bill with these various qualifications, but in welcoming it we nevertheless hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not close his mind to many of the points we made in Committee and here tonight.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Erroll: I appreciate the remarks of those who have spoken on Third Reading, even though they may have been somewhat modified by some sourness towards the Government and the


handling of administration under the parent Act—which, of course, I completely refute, but at this time of night I will not be drawn into an argument on the matter.
As all three speakers on Third Reading referred to the question of rented factories, I should attempt an explanation. Local authorities are not prevented from building factories for renting. They are still able to do so as they have been doing, so they are no worse off than before. The amount of local authority factory building for rent is on a very small scale, apart from the specialised cases to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan)referred. Those specialised cases will, I think, continue to develop satisfactorily without the added stimulus of a 25 per cent. grant, which could not be brought within the compass of this Bill because the parent Act has nothing whatever to say on the subject of renting and additional legislation would be required to deal with the small point which, in our experience of the working of the parent Act, is not one which has occasioned any difficulty.
There is a further complication. In making the building grant available, one must take into account the amount of employment provided and when one is building a factory to rent one cannot know whether employment will be created as a result. It may be that the builder is unable to find a manufacturing tenant and has to let the factory for storage purposes, in which case the grant would not be available. So it is not practicable to introduce this small but important point—I accept that it is important in its way—into the legislation.
There is no question, as the hon. Member for Craigton suggested, that we have not thought this legislation out properly. We have indeed. I am sorry that he should have thought the explanations I made earlier this evening represented inadequate thought having been given to the Bill. We have not made any Amendments except to remove Opposition Amendments. I am very glad that for once the Opposition was able to appreciate the reasonableness of the arguments we put forward and accepted the strength of them without forcing a Division. They were very good arguments. I am glad

to see this growing sense of intelligence on the part of hon. Members opposite. It is a very welcome development.
What the hon. Member for Craigton suggested were concessions were in fact explanations of the way in which we intend to operate the powers administratively under the parent Act and this amending Bill, bearing in mind that all the important provisions of the Bill and the Act are quite permissive. There is great responsibility on the Board of Trade. I regard it as one of my most serious responsibilities to carry out the administration of the Act. I give a great deal of time to ensuring that it is administered wisely and sensibly. This power given by Parliament to the Board of Trade confers great administrative discretion. It is essential that that should be so and we do our best to operate it wisely and sensibly. That is why I welcome the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, and I gladly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will most carefully study the Select Committee's recommendations. I will be prepared to say more about that on another occasion, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested I should, rather than tonight, and, of course, the formal reply to the Select Committee's recommendations will be made in due course. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am already studying them most carefully.
The date of expiry was mentioned on Second Reading. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the whole idea of having a fixed expiry date was to ensure that Parliament did rethink its whole philosophy towards development districts and the concept of steering industry to them, and decide whether development districts were right or wrong at a given point of time and not be able to let the matter drift because of lack of a terminal date.
It is not intended to put an end to everything, but to force Parliament and the Government of the day—which is un doubtedly bound to be a Conservative Government—[Interruption.] In fact, I am already contemplating the improvements in the legislation that may be necessary in 1967. This is a very good way of ensuring that Parliament devotes time to this matter after a period of some seven or eight years—

Mr. Jay: If the right hon. Gentleman really believes all that, why do not the Government make all their legislation expire in 1967?

Mr. Erroll: Because we do not want to keep the House up too late every night.
To conclude on a point about which I feel strongly, I know that it is part of the stock-in-trade of hon. and right hon. Members opposite to say that we are not doing anything under the parent Act. I am sure they talk a lot of humbug, because they know what a lot is being done under it. In the Second Reading debate on Wednesday, 1st May, the right hon. Gentleman made exactly the same charge as he has made tonight, but where was he on Thursday, 2nd May? He was up in Scotland attending the opening of the Rootes factory, which was brought about entirely through the operation of the parent Act—

Mr. T. Fraser: No.

Mr. Erroll: It certainly was. That is where the right hon. Gentleman was, and I am quite sure that he is much too much of a gentleman to have gone round that factory saying that the Government were not doing anything to bring industry to Scotland—

Mr. Fraser: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider what he has said, and appreciate that Rootes' decision to go to Linwood took place long before the 1960 Act was passed.

Mr. Erroll: As I was at the Board of Trade at the time, I am quite certain that the firm would not have gone there but for the assistance given under the Act. I am quite certain of that. Rootes decided in principle. I know in the course of my negotiations with many industrialists that they have agreed in many ways in principle to do this or that, but ideas lie fallow for a very long time. What really moved the motor industry to go to Scotland were the provisions of the parent Act. In any case, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman had a good day at Linwood on Thursday, 2nd May. I had a very good day in the North-East on Friday, the 24th May, visiting no less than five factory extensions, or new factories being started under the existing legislation.
That is a measure of what is going on. I believe that we are doing a good job and succeeding in our work, but we want these additional powers to do even better. I therefore very much hope that the House will give this Measure its Third Reading.

Mr. Jay: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to be so controversial at this time of night, is he aware that the real reason why Rootes went to Lynwood was that Pressed Steel was induced to go to Scotland in 1945, long before this Government or the I960 Act were born or thought of?

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

IMPORTS (COMPUTERS AND TABULATORS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hugh Rees.]

12.45 a.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Though it may not be apparent at first glance, the matter which I want to raise tonight is one of fundamental and widespread national importance. As it happens, it arises on what may seem to be a limited and a local issue, namely, the decision of the President of the Board of Trade to grant an open general import licence to Messrs. International Computers and Tabulators to import the Remington Rand process data tabulator, Univac 1004, from the United States. I know that sounds very technical, not to say mysterious. Some hon. Members have told me tonight that they do not understand what my Adjournment is about. It may also sound as though it is not anything very serious.
When I raised this matter in a Question earlier, the President of the Board of Trade pointed out to me that imports of data processing equipment from the United States are brought into this country on open general licence, that no specific approval is required from his Department for their import, and, indeed, that if such approval were required by him he would not withhold it.
I want tonight to try to go a little below that technical and rather confusing


surface and point out to the House what the decision to import these computers from the United States means to the country's economy as a whole, I.C.T. is one of the major producers in this country of office mechanisation equipment, and it has about 20,000 employees, of whom about 10,000 are directly engaged on production. This firm, despite its major rôle in this field, has now found that the mechanical equipment it is manufacturing has been completely outclassed by the electronic equipment developed in the United States, a notable example of this outclassing being the Remington Rand Univac 1004, for which this open import licence has now been given by the Board of Trade. It is, I am sure we will all agree, itself an alarming situation that the British computing and tabulating industry should have fallen behind in a field of modern industry in which, if we are ever to cure unemployment in this country, we ought to be way out ahead and developing rapidly.
What has been the reaction of this firm to the situation in which it has found itself? The reaction has been that it has thrown in the sponge in its efforts to keep up with the United States and, instead of trying to catch up in this field of development, it has entered into an agreement with Remington Rand of the United States to import its products instead. The consequences of this policy for British trade and for British employment are very menacingindeed. We have just spent quite a time discussing the Local Employment Bill. Here is an example in which employment in Britain is decreasing instead of expanding, as we have all been admitting that it ought to do.
The consequences of the I.C.T. decision on employment in this country are as follows. The chairman of I.C.T., Sir Edward Playfair, when this decision to import was made, forecast that there would be a substantial falling off in the present labour force of the firm during the next few months. This was followed by the announcement that the firm's factory at Southport, at present employing 800 men, is to be completely closed down over the next few months. But this is not all. It is not only Southport which is affected, though Southport is affected most completely and most dramatically. There are to be consequent redundancies

and uncertainties in other factories in this country in the possession of this firm.
The figures I have obtained show that the firm's factory in Northern Ireland is to declare 500 workers redundant out of a labour force of 2,500. At its factory at Letchworth, 336 out of 3,000 are to be laid off. At the Croydon factory, 234 out of 2,000 will become redundant, and at the factory at Dartford, Kent, 250 out of a labour force of 1,200 will be dismissed.

Mr. Martin Maddan: At Letchworth only 256 workers have been given the sack and there has been an undertaking that no more redundancies will be declared among the manual workers until at least April of next year.

Mrs. Castle: I am talking about forecasts. Sir Edward Playfair himself forecast the contraction of the labour force. All the hon. Member is saying is that instead of 336 having been declared redundant now only 256 have, with possible further redundancies in April of next year. We have just been discussing the need to expand and develop employment in this country.

Mr. Maddan: rose—

Mrs. Castle: I will not give way. This is an important matter and I have a lot to say in the few minutes available to me.
In at least two of these areas there is already a high rate of unemployment; Southport and Northern Ireland. It makes nonsense of the Government's full employment policy if about 2,000 workers are declared redundant out of a productive labour force of 10,000. It is a movement in entirely the wrong direction.
Protests about this have poured in to me and other hon. Members. I am raising this matter tonight not to poach on any other hon. Member's preserve but because these developments are symbolic of the industrial sickness of this country; and it is the wider aspects of the matter with which I wish to deal. The Southport Trades Council has passed a resolution of protest and a copy of it has been forwarded to me. The resolution states:
While recognising the need for the most modern equipment to be available in this country, we call on the President of the Board of Trade to limit the importation of


this equipment to a small number of prototype models, and thereafter ensure that this equipment be built here under licence. We would draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to possible repercussions in the radio industry who are precluded by this decision from manufacturing transistors and components which they would manufacture if the units were built in the United Kingdom. In addition, we believe it to be imperative that the technical know-how for the manufacture of such equipment be resident in this country.
This resolution was sent to the President of the Board of Trade. The sentiments expressed in it have broadly been echoed by workers from the I.C.T. factory at Dartford. I have informed my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) and the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) that I intended to raise this matter tonight, and I will try to allow them each a few minutes in which to intervene and to make their local points.
I wish to deal with points of national policy. Why has not I.C.T. been able to develop as good a machine as the American one? If it had, this disastrous policy of importation would not have been necessary. I believe that the firm has tried to develop a similar machine to the one now to be imported but, apparently, failed. Why? It is imperative that this question be answered. Has the firm now thrown in the sponge and decided to concentrate more on marketing?
When I raised the question in the House on 14th March the President of the Board of Trade told me that these imports were to be a temporary measure while the firm re-established itself. Has he made any inquiry to satisfy himself that this is true? I draw his attention to the edition of the Electronics Weekly of 6th February, 1963, in which the announcement of I.C.T.'s decision to sell Remington computers was first made. The data processing correspondent of that newspaper wrote:
Since the original Power Samas—British Tabulator Machine merger in January, 1959, to form ICT the organisation has undergone a dramatic change. This is particularly noticeable since Sir Edward Playfair became chairman 18 months ago. This latest move should se the withering away of the Punched Card core with its historical conflicts and the emergence of a new organisation with an emphasis more on marketing and usage than manufacture".

It is that decision which has aroused my profound alarm and should arouse the alarm of the House. On 14th March the President said that all these imports were excusable because we ought to encourage American investment here. But this is not a question of American investment. This is a question of a major manufacturing company in this country in a modern electronics field deciding to act in future as the importers of American products. If we consider only our balance of payments, this means, at import prices of £30,000 per unit, that £3 million worth of dollar imports a year would be involved. There is thus a strain on our balance of payments as well as creating unemployment for British workers.
I entirely agree that we do not want permanent protection against American imports in any field. I am not asking purely for protection, but I am suggesting to the Parliamentary Secretary that we face an emergency. It is wrong for this firm to be allowed to consider purely its own limited financial interests. It ought to be required to serve the nationalinterest. It is wrong that groups of highly skilled workers, such as these employed in the Southport factory, should be dissipated by the closing down of the works there—and that is the danger. It is wrong that some of these technicians and supervisors, some of the most scarce, skilled men in British industry, should be turned loose to find what other employment they can.
I agree with the Southport Trades Council that the firm should be allowed to import only half-a-dozen or a dozen prototype machines and should manufacture under licence in this country. If this were done, the firm could retrain these excellent men at Southport, for these are highly skilled men in mechanical assembly work and they could be trained for electronics production.
Alternatively, the Government should develop new outlets for products from this firm. I understand that the German firm, Siemens-Halske, is manufacturing electro-mechanical equipment of the punched-card type for sorting letters in the German Post Office. Why cannot we do that in this country, instead of merely creating additional unemployment in an


area such as Southport, which already has a high unemployment figure?
We also need a Government inquiry into the electronics industry. Some £50 million a year is being spent on research in electronics—most of it Government money—and we want to know what we are getting for it. We know what a poor return we have had for the expenditure in defence. After all the money spent on inertial guidance systems, we have now to buy that system in the United States for use in Polaris. Results of research in the civil field are equally poor because of the lack of interest by electronic firms in their social responsibilities for those engaged in industry. Either I.C.T. is not spending enough on research or it is not spending it effectively. Factory closures and redundancies show the need for Government-sponsored reorganisation of the electronics industry. In order to set on foot this planned expansion of one of the major growth industries of the country, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to suspend open general licences for I.C.T. while we put our house in order and find work for a fine body of men.

1.1 a.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: Appreciating that I am intervening in an Adjournment debate, I must be extremely brief and confine myself to two observations about Southport. I am obliged to the hon. Lady the Member for Black-bum (Mrs. Castle) for having written to me in advance to say that she would be referring to Southport, but I cannot agree with the proposition she is advancing. I believe that she has some of her facts wrong and I ask her to reconsider, after what I have to say, whether, when she looks at the facts, the position may not be rather different from that which she has put forward. There never were 800 men employed and the hon. Lady does not appreciate the difficulty we have had in holding a labour force together. No one can blame the men for doing it, but skilled men have gone to other employment.

Mrs. Castle: They did not know that this was going on.

Mr. Percival: They were given fair warning and the Department is not responsible for the present situation.

There are two points here. First, there is the closing of the I.C.T.factory in Southport, and, second, the importing of electronic equipment. I am satisfied that the first is not the result of the second. I deplore the closing of this factory. I have at least as much personal concern over its closing as any other hon. Member. I have been in constant communication for six months with both management and men, and I should like to pay tribute to both. The men are an excellent, skilled, loyal, labour force with a splendid record of industrial relationships tinder the leadership of William Critchley. They have co-operated fully in efforts to dispose of the factory as a going concern.
I am equally satisfied that I.C.T. has done everything on its part to do the same and to find somebody to take it over as a package deal in order to keep the same labour force. We have been trying over the past six months to keep the labour force in order that a deal should be done. But everybody appreciates that there is a limit and no one can blame a skilled man for saying, "I cannot hold on in the hope that someone will take over. I must go somewhere else." I am at a loss to understand why some manufacturer has not appreciated that that here is a golden opportunity—an excellent factory, a splendid labour force and first-class machinery, all available in a town in which it is a joy to live and work. One has not yet been found. It is sincerely to be hoped that one may be found. Everyone concerned is trying very hard to find someone who would be prepared to make this package deal.
This, however, is quite separate and distinct from importing electronic equipment. My information is that if the imports were to cease there would be less, not more, work for the manufacturing employees of I.T.C. I cannot expand on this now but the details I have been given convince me that this is so. I hope, therefore, that all who agree about this—and I am sure that we all do—will continue to make every effort to bring the advantages of the I.T.C. factory in South-port to the attention of anyone who might take it as a package deal. Equally I hope that this question, which is of immense importance to my constituency, will not be confused by the controversy over imports.

1.5 a.m.

Mr. Sydney Irving: The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) does not seem to be very disturbed about the threat of redundancy hanging over some of his constituents. I feel very differently about it. It is little satisfaction to them to be told, as the Parliamentary Secretary told them not long ago, that unemployment in the area is below the national average and that there are many employment opportunities within easy reach. It is a highly questionable proposition.
North-west Kent may be below the national average but the unemployment there is higher than for the last quarter of a century. Lists at local employment exchanges have been doubled, and there is anxiety about redundancy in firms which have hardly known it in recent years.
I put a straight question to the Minister—whether he is really satisfied that the group has done all in its power to keep abreast of new developments in the computer world or whether, as some fear, the situation is in part a failure in enterprise?
This is not the only grouse that the men have. Many of them feel that present imports, which are said to be an expedient to cover the time when punched cards end and their own developments start, could become a permanent and growing feature. Because of the ramifications in the structure of the group, it is feared that it could become more a selling organisation than a producing organisation. Whether this is true or not, the workers ought to be satisfied, and there are complaints in this connection, despite what the hon. Gentleman has said, about inadequate consultation and policy statements merely being handed down.
But the men are also disturbed by the fact that there appears, despite a promise, to be little serious attempt to establish retraining courses for men who have spent years in factories in the group to enable them to continue to be part of the organisation after the changeover.
The Dartford factory is one of the best mechanical factories in the group. The men and the organisation are facing the fundamental problem which will face most of industry in one degree or another if we are to modernise and keep abreast of

scientific and technical development or even to survive. It is essential that confidence should be established between management and men if such developments are to take place smoothly. It is essential that proper consultation should take place and that the fullest retraining should be adopted.
I ask the Minister to cancel the open licence and also to satisfy himself with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, that the fullest consultation and retraining have been adopted by the group.

1.7 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): First of all, I should like to apologise to the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who would normally have replied to this debate. As I think the hon. Lady knows, my hon. Friend is on an important tour of North America, I appreciate that she might have preferred a reply from another Lancashire Member. However, I shall do my best to give her an answer and to answer the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving).
The hon. Member for Blackburn has criticised what she calls the issue of an open general licence covering the computers which I.C.T. is importing. I should like to make it clear from the start that there was no question of these imports requiring specific authorisation.
We have, in accordance with our general commercial policy and in line with our trading interests, worked for the removal of artificial barriers to trade. We have tried to secure the removal of quantitative restrictions on imports where-ever possible, and have, along with other countries, accepted an obligation not to impose quantitative restrictions except for balance of payments reasons.
In accordance with this obligation, we have removed restrictions on the import of most goods, but, because of the form of our legislation, these goods are shown as being covered by an open general licence rather than completely unrestricted. But the effect is exactly the same. There is no restriction on, and no


need for authorisation by the Board of Trade of, imports of these goods.
The hon. Lady has urged that we should permit imports of certain types of computer and electronic data processing equipment only on a limited scale, so as to encourage production in this country, and avoid reductions in I.C.T.'s labour force. Quite apart from the international obligations to which I have referred—and they are more serious than the hon. Lady accepted in her remarks—I hope to show that such restrictions would be unjustified.
The field of data processing, with which the debate is specifically concerned, provides a striking example of the rapid development of electronic computing equipment, not only replacing more conventional equipment for data processing but also extending into a wide range of new applications, particularly to scientific work.
The range and variety of computer equipment which has been developed is already very extensive—ranging from relatively small pieces of equipment to large installations operating at very high speeds. The development does not reside only in the computer equipment itself. For its successful application, specially designed ancillary equipment must also be developed together with the "know-how" and what I call the software without which the advantages offered by these striking advances in computer technology cannot be fully achieved.
This is a field of intense international competition and there is no room for complacency. However, I can assure the hon. Lady that our industry is holding its own and producing some fine machines. As evidence of the way in which our industry is responding to the challenge of this rapidly expanding field, I would quote the information which appeared in our newspapers yesterday morning, that the Post Office has just placed with English Electric-Leo the largest single order ever placed in this country for business computing equipment.
I should also tell the House that the Univac 1004, the machine which I.C.T. is arranging to import from America, is not, strictly speaking, a computer. It is an electronic development of the conventional data processing equipment and

it bridges the gap between these automatic machines and the more usual type of electronic computer proper. I understand that it is unique both in this country and in the United States as well. Therefore, I cannot accept the hon. Lady's charge that I.C.T. has failed in its research and development effort because it has not developed this particular machine. By her standard, every other firm in every other country would have failed similarly.
I do not believe it is any discredit to the British computer industry if it cannot always provide the best machine for every application in such a wide range of complex variations. Of course, if there were evdence that the British computer industry was not providing its share of new machines, I would agree with the hon. Lady that that would be something that we should look into seriously. But I am sure that no country can be best at everything, especially in a rapidly-advancing technical field where there is room for so many new developments. If this were not so, there would not be any international trade.
It is worth noting at this stage that I.C.T. sends to the markets of the world the products of its factories in this country. This trade is worth millions of pounds and we must continue, by our efforts and by our examples, to secure the maximum openings in the markets of the world for the products of all of our industries and thereby help to increase and maintain employment at home. I.C.T. has made it clear that it is its aim, as a company which holds a dominant position as a supplier of data processing equipment, to secure for the future an increasing share of a changing and expanding market, thereby establishing more firmly, in face of the changes that have taken place as a result of scientific and technological advances, the future prospects of the company and of the considerable number of staff whom it employs.
Following the development of electronic computers, the demand for conventional data processing equipment has declined. I.C.T. has itself undertaken the development of computers. But computers vary enormously over a wide range in design and size according to the data processing job to be done. As of now, I.C.T. has developed, and manufactures


in this country, only certain types of computers within the range which it feels it must offer in order to maintain its position as a supplier of data processing equipment to the market. Competition in this field from British and foreign manufacturers is intense. It is, therefore, considered essential for the company, in order to meet this competition, to be able to offer an adequate range of equipment. What is adequate. I suggest,

is a matter for I.C.T.'s commercial and technological judgment. Neither I nor my officials—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order,

Adjourned at a quarter past One o'clock